Posts Tagged ‘Al Gore’

This is the second part about USA. Again, It ain’t pretty to say the least!

Where the same absurd Alice in Wonderland economic and political farce is playing out in the USA. And as in Europe it is, as usual, the common people who are paying the price.

And as in Europe, the US crisis is anything but over regardless of what the political elites are trying to tell the people in USA. In USA the role of ECB is played by the FED (the Federal Reserve), which creates money out of “thin air” to support the gigantic and increasing debt. And to keep the stock market going and lower the price of the dollar.

So that the federal US government can spend your tax money like a drunken sailor.

In USA, Goldman Sachs and the other investment banks, plus the big Hedge Funds, are pushing leverage to ridiculous and dangerous extremes.

If you read the Comptroller of the Currency, Administrator of National Banks, report for the second quarter 2012 “Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities”, you get utterly horrified of the totals of the open derivatives positions in the US market.

Four of the largest U.S. banks are walking an extreme tightrope of risk, leverage and debt when it comes to derivatives. Below you are going to find just how utterly exposed they are.

But first what is leverage?

Most people do not understand “leverage” and what it actually means. If they did, they would not sleep at night knowing what’s going on right now.

To put it simple: leverage means that these banks etc use a leverage of say 1:50 or 1:100 in their speculations. Which means that they only put up 1 of their own dollars for an investment worth 50 or 100 dollar. Their dollars are “worth” 50 or 100 times more than they actually are.

It ALSO means that IF “things” goes wrong way they LOSE 50 or 100 dollars for every dollar they invested in that trade or position. Or much, much more.

And usually when things goes wrong, it goes very fast when it comes to trading with these kind of leverages. So very quickly, these sums get astronomical. In a couple of days they can literally lose ALL their capital and more.

This has happened time and time again. Just to mention a few:

– Lehman Brothers (was the 4th largest inv. bank in the US).

– Bear Stearns

– American International Group

– Northern Rock (a medium-sized British bank)

– Washington Mutual

– American Savings and Loan

– Landsbanki and Glitnir

– Barings Bank

– Société Générale

– JP Morgan Chase & Co

– Morgan Stanley

– Long-Term Capital Management L.P. (LTCM)

As I said before, this is JUST A VERY SHORT LIST

This would not per se be a problem if this were a truly free and capitalist market. Because then these banks would go bankrupt and the owners and investors would lose their money. As they are supposed to do if the do bad business or trades.

But as we all know,this is NOT a free and capitalist market. Our “dear” politicians have “decided” that these banks with all their wild speculations are too important or to big, to be allowed to fail.

So instead, they have used taxpayer’s money and put whole countries at risk and in extreme debt just to bail out these banks.

And the banks knows that whatever speculations they do, REGARDLESS of how much or bad they speculate, and as you can see below their speculations are horrific, the politicians are going to bail them out with our tax money.

JP Morgan Chase

Total Assets: $1,812,837,000,000 (just over 1.8 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $69,238,349,000,000 (more than 69 trillion dollars)

Citibank

Total Assets: $1,347,841,000,000 (a bit more than 1.3 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $52,150,970,000,000 (more than 52 trillion dollars)

Bank Of America

Total Assets: $1,445,093,000,000 (a bit more than 1.4 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $44,405,372,000,000 (more than 44 trillion dollars)

Goldman Sachs

Total Assets: $114,693,000,000 (a bit more than 114 billion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $41,580,395,000,000 (more than 41 trillion dollars)

To sum up – TOTAL EXPOSURE TO DERIVATES for ONLY these four banks:

207, 375, 086, 000, 000 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!

TOTAL ASSETS for these four banks: 4,720,464,000,000TRILLION DOLLARS

So they can “cover” 2,27 % of the Total Exposure with ALL their Assets!

So who is going to pay for the “rest”: 202, 654, 622, 000, 000 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!! if anything goes wrong?

Well, we know the answer to that doesn’t we. So far, it’s the common people, i.e. the taxpayers, who had to cover for all the banks bad speculations thanks to our dear politicians.

Take another look at those figures for Goldman Sachs. If you do the math, Goldman Sachs has total exposure to derivatives contracts that is more than 364 times greaterthan their total assets!

That is utter insanity, but everyone just keeps pretending that the emperor actually has clothes on.

And why are “our” politicians SO EAGER to protect these speculators?

To put these GIGANTIC sums into perspective lets compare with the GDP from USA and all of EU from 2011

There a lot of different way to calculate GDP and the figures for each year. Add to that exchange fluctuations, conversion rates etc. So the figures below comes from the same source (IMF) to make the comparison easier. And it is their conversion.

GDP USA 2011 – 15,094,025 billion US dollars

GDP EU 2011 – 17,610,826 billion US dollars

Total GDP for EU and USA 2011: 32,704,851 billion US dollars.

Lets compare these 32,704,851 billion US dollars with TOTAL EXPOSURE TO DERIVATES for these four above mentioned banks:

207, 375, 086, 000, 000 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!

VS

32,704,851 billion US dollars in COMBINED GDP of EU and USA

Anyone see any problem???

Problem solved all right. So just move on, nothing to notice here or worry about.

Because according to out “dear” politicians, bankers and political elites from EU and USA there is NO SERIOUS PROBLEM HERE. The problems in USA and EU are more or less solved etc.

So the ones that put as in the mess in the first place, very “reassuringly” tells us: “We take care of it”.

Yeah sure!

Let’s move on to another “bright spot” –the federal budget and debt. The figures are based on the 2012/2013 data:

2012 US Tax Revenue: $2,469,000,000,000

2012 Federal budget: $3,796,000,000,000

2012 Budget deficit: $1,327,000,000,000

US Federal Debt as of January 22, 2013: $16,471,084,067,491

Total interest paid on the debt in 2012: $359,796,008,919

Budget INCREASE between 2012 and 2013: $38,500,000,000

To make these gigantic sums understandable here is how these figures would look like for a “normal” family:

Annual family income: $24,690

Annual family expenses: $37,960. 154%of the annual family income.

Annual family shortfall borrowed from friends/neighbors etc: $13,270. 54%of the annual family income.

Total interest the family paid last year: $3,598 (at near 0% interest). Nearly 15% of the annual family income

Total family debt (mortgage, auto, credit card): $164,471.This is 666% of the annual family income.

Change in family spending this year: an increase of $385

This looks like a very responsible family wouldn’t you say?

And do you think this family would get any loans from the banks?

When you look at it this way, it really seems absurd. Yet it’s true… a slow motion train wreck. That any person with more than one functioning brain cell can see coming miles away. Except our “dear” politicians. They are in ACTUAL FACT increasing the spending AND the debt.

Here’s another way to look at the debt ceiling I found in a paper. It’s very symptomatic:

Let’s say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood… and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do?

Raise the ceilings, or remove the crap?

Well, or “dear” politicians are franticly at an increasing speed trying to raise the ceiling at the same time as the “sewage” is increasing EVEN MORE.

Yeap, there you have politicians in a nutshell.

Why fix the problem that they themselves caused, when the politicians can pretend that they are the giver of all gods and bearer of all gifts to all the people all the time.

And it doesn’t cost anything for anybody. It’s ALL free forever. And they all lived happily ever after.

It is a very sad day indeed to see a people voluntarily decide to throw themselves and their country over the cliff.

Let’s look at the economy (the figures are from the Congressional Budget Office):

In the Fiscal Year 2011, the federal government collected $2.303 trillion in tax revenue. Interest on the debt that year totaled$454.4 billion, and mandatory spending totaled $2,025 billion. In sum, mandatory spending plus debt interest totaled $2.479 trillion –. exceeding total revenue by $176.4 billion.

(Mandatory spending includes entitlements like Medicare, Social Security etc. which are REQUIRED by law to be paid. Congress in practical terms do not see this money, it is automatically deducted.)

For the Fiscal Year 2012, which just ended 37 days ago, that deficit increased 43% to$251.8 billion.

In other words, they could cut the entire Federal Government’s discretionary budget – No military, SEC, FBI, EPA, DHS, IRS, etc.- and they would still be in deficit by a quarter of a trillion dollars.

(Discretionary spending includes nearly everything we think of related to government- the US military, the Department of Homeland Security, IRS, EPA etc.)

The only thing showing any growth in the US, besides the debilitating regulatory burdens, is the national debt. It took over 200 years for the US government to accumulate its first trillion dollars in debt. It took just 286 days to accumulate the most recent trillion (to $16 trillion).

Last month alone, the first month of Fiscal Year 2013, the US government accumulated nearly $200 billion in new debtin just 31 days.

And the numbers will only continue to get worse. 10,000 people each day begin receiving mandatory entitlements. Fewer people remain behind to pay into the system. The debt keeps rising, and interest payments will continue to rise even more. In addition, the dollar is going to decline.

The result, the US government is legally bound to spend more money on mandatory entitlements and interest than it can raise in tax revenue. It will not make any difference how high the federal, state or local government raise taxes, or even if they cut everything.

Another effect of Obama economics is that the poor are getting poorer, especially the black. Under Obama the poorest Americans has suffered the single largest drop in income ever.

And the Black Americans in the same lowest income quintile have suffered almost double as the average American in the same quintile under Obama:

The drop is– 11.58% in one year(2010) and is at the lowest level ever.

That’s what I call “change”!But I would not call it “hope”.

And the number of people classified as poor are getting larger and larger.

Then on top of that, we have the equally disastrous foreign policy. Where the Obama administration systematically have thrown their former allies (Eastern Europe, Britain, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc) under the bus, and helped parties like the Muslim Brotherhood that hate everything that USA and the western world stands for, to power.

See my 19 posts on Syria etc as some examples of that disastrous foreign policy:

But as the old saying goes (Joseph de Maistre in a letter from St Petersburg August 1811): a country has the politicians/government that they deserve. So enjoy!

In addition, this quote from a reader’s commentary in The Prager Zeitung in March 2010 (translated from Czech) sums it up quite well really:

“Multitude of Fools

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.

It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.“

P.S. If you are wondering about the title, see this video with music by Spike Jones. There is another long story behind the lyrics but that you have to find out yourself. D.S.

First about Anthony Watts: He has my unreserved admiration for his long and unique work on surface stations in USA, revelling their poor locations, quality etc. This is exceptionally good work from a private citizen when the government and “scientific” organisations failed to do their work.

And then his dedicated work on his blog (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) to expose the flawed “science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria. All this work has made his blog, rightfully so, one of the must influential ones. This is extraordinary work from a private citizen. I stand in salute for that.

But, as I said, he has crossed a line that should not be crossed with the above post.

As a former journalist and working in the government, I am deeply troubled. I posted a comment to his post (see at the end of this post), but I like to explain in more detail why I am so troubled by his post.

What shines through is the absolute naiveté, especially the political naiveté. It’s incredulous. And dangerous.

So let’s first recapitulate which persons/groups are behind the greatest scientific/political scandal in modern time – The Global Warming Hysteria:

So called “scientists” (Big science), the political elites, governments, EU, UN, NGO: s (all goes under Big Government and Global Big Government), the mainstream media (Old Big Media), Big Companies (including ironically Big Oil). Many of them have been at it for nearly 30-40 years.

In sum the establishment.

They don’t care about the truth and give no quarters to anybody. Especially if people are perceived as a threat. These people and groups will never give up their power or privileges voluntarily, or because they are “nice”. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

So it is this “charming lot” we are up against.

There are two parts to this.

First:

The first part is the extensive speculations, going through categories of persons that could have done it, and tips on who is behind the leak etc.

As I said in my comment to his post:

“Why on earth should you in any shape or form abet them in trying to catch the person/persons behind the leak?”

This is not your job, Anthony. The governments, with ALL their disposable resources; from police via tax authorities to different intelligence agencies and special ops; HAVE ALL the resources in the world to find this person/persons. If they so chose.

As a journalist, the first rule is to protect your sources. And especially you don’t try and go and expose them through lengthy examinations and discussion about who they can be.

To give you an analogue with one of the most famous of them all “Deep throat”. This exposed the Nixon administration, including the Watergate scandal.

Imagine if Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had written lengthy articles about who the source could be, which persons actually had access to that kind of information, which department etc he or she could come from.

How many new sources do you think they would get? – None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. They would be the pariah of investigative journalism. And for a very good reason too.

Her you have a very reliable source with data that can be controlled and verified. And you want to find out who it is. Thereby risking that person/persons untold “unpleasantness”. Just by speculating.

And Anthony, why do you think FOIA after two years of silence published the WHOLE email file this time, even if you could only access 5000 of them? The rest covered by high encryption and a very long pass phrase?

Because this is his or her insurance against the resources the state can put against them.

Remember that FOIA was very naïve to in the beginning. He/she gave it first to the mainstream media (including laughingly enough BBC). Which of course refused to do anything.

It was only after that it was “leaked”. But however FOIA is, he/she have quickly learned the hard political lessons.

Very telling is the absent from the leaked emails of ANY regarding contacts between the so called “scientists” and politicians or person high up in various administrations/agencies etc.

Why, because I am quite sure that they are there among the rest of the 250 000 emails behind that encryption. So if the state or politicians gets “to close” FOIA will release the pass phrase which will reveal everything in the hidden emails.

That alone should give you pass for thought. And stop this helping to find the person/persons behind the leak.

Second:

So let’s again recapitulate which “charming lot” are behind the greatest scientific/political scandal in modern time:

So called “scientists” (Big science), the political elites, governments, EU, UN, NGO: s (all goes under Big Government and Global Big Government), the mainstream media (Old Big media), Big companies (including ironically Big Oil). Many of the have been at it for nearly 30-40 years.

In sum the establishment.

They don’t care about the truth and give no quarters to anybody. Especially if people are perceived as a threat. These people and groups will never give up their power or privileges voluntarily, or because they are “nice”. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

So it is this “prime example of truthful and nice people” we are up against.

And what does Anthony do?

He writes an email to one of the chief architects behind the Global Warming Hysteria Phil Jones (CRU)and Journal of Geophysical Research;and kindly informs them that he has discovered some security holes.

And admonishes that they “should immediately change all passwords access for these CRU members and I would advise against allowing transmission of live links such as the one above in the future. JGR might also consider a more secure method of manuscript sharing for review.”

Let me se if I get this right:

Anthony writes to Phil Jones, a guy who literally hates him and has done everything possible to smear and stop him, and tells him about security problems on their systems. And how to stop them so there can be no leaks in the future?

HUUHHH??????

Leaks like Climate gate 1 and 2, which showed in black and white these “scientist”, politicians and “journalists” to be lying, breaking the law,“adjusting” and manipulating data to fit their agenda, stopping ANY dissent and suppressing any person or paper that dared to question them.

Out of respect for Anthony I will not make some very tempting analogies here.

You have accomplished what the Global Warming Hysterics in their wettest dream didn’t dare to dream.

How sad. And what a shame.

I can only conclude by saying that Anthony, you have crossed a line, and even if you do not understand it yourself, you have become Colonel Nicholson (se below).

Here is my comment to his post published 4.24 am today:

______________________________________

Anthony, have you lost it?

Why on earth should you in any shape or form abet them in trying to catch the person/persons behind the leak? As some have pointed out in their comments.

And Charles.U.Farleys comments are spot on

“In fact if the roles were reversed i think theyd have used any foothold, any loophole to ensure they brought you down rather than simply seek the truth. Personally i dont think its wise to assist them in any way shape or form as its simply helping them to continue unabated.

After all, this is a global war theyre involved in, a war based on lies and disinformation, of treachery and vilification of anyone not supporting “the cause”, and comfort shouldnt be given to enemies of freedom, especuially ones who stoop so low as these.”

Sadly, you very much remind me of commander, Colonel Nicholson played by Alec Guinness in the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957).

The prisoners (British soldiers) are working as little as possible and sabotaging whatever they can at the construction of a bridge.

When Nicholson and his officers are released, he conducts an inspection of the bridge and is shocked by what he finds. Against the protests of some of his officers, he orders Captain Reeves and Major Hughes to design and build a proper bridge, despite its military value to the Japanese, for the sake of his men’s morale. The Japanese engineers had chosen a poor site, so the original construction is abandoned and a new bridge is begun 400 yards downstream.

Nicholson drives his men, even volunteering to have them work harder to complete the bridge on time

The commandos who where parachute in, plant explosives to destroy the bridge and a train carrying Japanese soldiers and important dignitaries is scheduled to be the first to use the bridge the following morning

Making a final inspection, Nicholson spots the wire and brings it to Japanese commander attention. As the train is heard approaching, the two hurry down to the riverbank to investigate. Joyce, hiding with the detonator, breaks cover and stabs Saito to death; Nicholson yells for help, while attempting to stop Joyce from reaching the detonator. Joyce is killed by Japanese fire. Shears swims across the river, but is shot just before he reaches Nicholson.

Recognising the dying Shears, Nicholson exclaims, ”What have I done?”

I think it sums it up quiet well.

Sophia

__________________________________________________________

UPDATE

Well my post made some stir. As it should because it concerns some important principles.

First, let me say that I find it depressing that so few people really understands the need to protect the sources. And doesn’t understand that mindless speculations are very dangerous in this regard

Second, what shines through, still, in the debate is the absolute naiveté, especially the political naiveté. It’s incredulous. And very dangerous.

This is NOT some tea party where you discus things friendly over biscuits and cake. And have a wee argument.

This is about Power and Real Politics. And the persons behind the Global Warming Hysteria have been playing it for a long time. And very successfully so.

Until people understand this, that it always has been a political agenda, the Global Warming Hysterics will have the upper hand. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

Here are some who publicly have commented and linked to my post about Anthony Watts:

Why on earth would be do that when the Climategate releases have been so helpful to skeptics? It appears to be out of some misguided sense of honour but I suspect that the real motive is that he is tired of being reviled by the climate establishment and is hungry for some praise from them: Deeply regrettable on many levels.

A Swedish blogger who herself finds great holes in the reporting of climate statistics is particilarly upset because she knows how unprincipled and dishonest the climate establishment is. She sees what Watts has done as akin to aiding and abetting criminals in their crime.

”Anthony wrights to Phil Jones, a guy who literarily hates him and has done everything possible to smear and stop him, and tells him about security problems on their systems. And how to stop them so there can be no leeks in the future?
HUUHHH??????”

“A schism in the ranks of global warming skeptics may ensue due to another gaffe by the world’s most popular science website, WattsUpWithThat. WUWT blogger, Anthony Watts has unashamedly boasted to have tipped off Climategate fraudster, Professor Phil Jones, about a potentially critical further security leak on university Internet servers.”

”You got that? It was his “duty,”says Watts, to help FOIA-denying fraudster Jones (the data-destroyer who unlawfully obstructed other researchers from trying to independently verify CRU climate calculations) to hide even more evidence. With such principled ‘friends’ like Watts does Steve McIntyre need any enemies?

Respected Aussie skeptic, Dr John Ray was so stunned by the Watts email that he penned ‘Controversial action by Anthony Watts’ (December 07, 2011) in response. Dr. Ray bemoans, “Watts has been assisting prominent Warmists to avoid any further releases of their emails. He is trying to disable any Climategate III.” Then Watts appeared to give the finger to Ray and fellow skeptics by declaring, “I opted on the side of doing what I felt was the right course of action. If that upsets a few people, so be it.”

Watts: Not the First Fool to Aid Professor Jones

When roundly condemned by more savvy commenters on his blog Watts responded on December 6, 2011 at 10:38 am:

“I was told in the reply from Phil Jones and from AGU that others had also been made aware of it, so I wasn’t the first.”

This Watts statement gives the game away: by declaring he was not aware that others had already tipped off Jones and in offering no further justification for his tactically inept action, he is merely conceding, “it wasn’t me who did it!”

As such the image of a snivelling schoolboy caught misbehaving springs to mind. Above all else, this ill-advised gaffe by Watts proves, if proof were needed, that Watts acted in haste and probably without consulting others. As such it shows once again that “Our Side” are a rag-tag bunch of renegades and not the “well-funded and well-organized” team that the narrative of Gore, Hansen, Mann, et al. would have the public believe.

I relate entirely to Dr. Ray and others who are now questioning why Watts would act to help the dastardly Phil Jones to block a potentially excellent source of information for skeptics. Ray speculates that Watts’s apoplexy appears to be triggered by some ”misguided sense of honor.” I can’t see any other logical reason so that may be true.

Ray suspects that an underlying motive is that Watts has become “tired of being reviled by the climate establishment and is hungry for some praise from them: Deeply regrettable on many levels.”

Wider International Frustrations Due to Watts

Ray’s frustrations are echoed by a Swedish blogger (read her comments HERE) similarly perplexed that Watts, a champion of exposing flaws in the ground level global thermometer readings, should want to sink to “aiding and abetting criminals in their crime.”

Watts just doesn’t seem to have the broader expertize to join the dots on this. In legal parlance, both the mens rea and actus reas were there for any jury to convict Jones of such crimes. Watts doesn’t comprehend that the original criminal charge against Jones under the FOIA was not pursued merely because of a tecnicality – the short six-month time limit had already expired. “

However, only the self-serving elite in the Crown Prosecution Service, police and UK Government refuse to see that Jones may still be prosecuted for his offenses as per the Fraud Act 2006 ( see Ch. 35. Fraud. ‘1 Fraud. 2 Fraud by false representation. 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information’) where no such time limit gets Jones off the hook.Watts, by being so amenable to Jones, is bolstering the edifice of climate criminality.

Watts just doesn’t get it – these authorities to which Jones is but a mere stooge – are not going to suddenly acquire the principles they manifestly lack and actually start playing by the rules. My own view is thatWattsacted hastily and foolishly to tip off fraudster Jones – such a gaffe gains us nothing and may cost us valuable new information. Scum like Jones do not deserve a helping hand because he and his governmental handlers can’t win a fair fight.”

“But why should Watts want to help scum like Jones? Professor Jones is a man patently caught out engaging in criminal misconduct expressing his intent in emails to colleagues and urging them to join him in unlawfully defying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. “

“Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the ”scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011’ (or ”thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.”

“FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil,if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very leastyou it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”

” Can’t see what the fuss is about, meself … just another 5,000 e-mails showing the climate science ”community” committing collective suicide – nothing a few ”independent” scientific inquiries and a BBC documentary can’t fix … hide the recline, so to speak.”

“The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by theUniversityofEast Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages.”

Now the new emails are searchable in a database. It took less than a day through volunteer work by independent bloggers. That’s why the political elite, politicians, the mainstream media (old media) and so called scientists; in the end don’t have a change to hide the truth. And to continue to drive their political agenda and manipulations even if they have all the money in the world.

Which they have, it is we, the taxpayers that is forced to finance this giant scam. And it is we, the common people that have to pay two/three times for the “pleasure” of watching our politicians reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

They also have the backing of the big corporations, including ironically BIG Oil.

That’s why this fight for truth, real data and real science, and freedom is taking so long. They are not going to voluntarily give up all this power and money.

”Climategate 2.0 – the gift that goes on giving. And you know how good it is from the reaction of the trolls. They’re going mental. On the one hand they’d like to insist it’s a non-story. On the other hand, the more shrilly they shriek it’s a non-story the more evident it becomes just what a great story it is.

Here’s an amusing analysis of the warmist trolls’ various lines of defence, which I picked up from the comments at Watts Up With That: (I wd give a hat tip except I’ve gone and lost the bit: if anyone can re-find it for me let me know)

Stage 1: they aren’t real emails

Stage 2: they are real emails but they aren’t in context

Stage 3: they are in context, but that’s how scientists work

Stage 4: ok, this isn’t really science, but you guys stole the emails!

Which they force on us regardless of we like it or not. Even if we say that the whole idea is idiotic and is not going to work. And it is going to be extremely costly and counterproductive.

Why? Because these ideological driven bureaucrats, administrators, government officials think we, the people, are stupid and don’t understand “important” things. But they do. And they know best.

So they force us by taxes, regulations, fines or law.

We are treated like serfs even if they are supposed to “work for us”. And in unguarded moments you really can see their disdain for us and how “superior” they think they are. (Ron Schiller NPR anyone?)

So therefore it is refreshing to see Rand Paul let them taste their own medicine.

They really want us back to the Stone Age to “reduce” our “carbon footprint”.

And how long do you think the people and the modern societies would survive WITHOUT electricity? And what kind of life that would be?

What they are really advocating is huge price increases in the cost of energy, meaning the cost of everything.

That’s it. That’s their plan.

Anything else they say is a lie.

This is a scam to enrich the corrupt.

Just the latest example of this is this quote from Steve Holliday, chief executive of the National Grid (UK) from The Daily Telegraph, 2nd March 2011:

‘Era of constant electricity at home is ending, says power chief.

Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable. Families will have to get used to only using power when it was available, rather than constantly.”

What a brilliant future the Global Warming Hysterics have in store for humankind. And remember they have publicly said and written that they would like to halve, or even cut in two thirds, the world population. Well, wind power is on way of getting about it.

These people are so caring are they not? And they REALLY love humankind.

Here are just a few examples around the world of the growing realisation of the huge cost and unreliability of wind/solar power:

“The economic candle in the U.K. is being blown out by wind power. The Verso study finds that after the annual diversion of some 330 million British pounds from the rest of the U.K. economy, the result has been the destruction of 3.7 jobs for every “green” job created.

The study concludes that the “policy to promote renewable energy in the U.K. has an opportunity cost of 10,000 direct jobs in 2009-10 and 1,200 jobs in Scotland.” So British taxpayers, as is the case here in the U.S., are being forced to subsidize a net loss of jobs in a struggling economy.

“There’s a big emphasis in Scotland on the economic opportunity of investing in renewable energy,” says study co-author and Verso research director Richard Walsh. “Whatever the environmental merits, we have shown that the case for green jobs just doesn’t stack up.”

Again, it’s been shown that wind energy can’t hold a candle to other more traditional and more reliable forms of energy.

“The Scottish renewable sector is very reliant on subsidies from the rest of the U.K.,” co-author Tom Miers adds. “Without the U.K.-wide framework, it would be very difficult to sustain the main policy tolls to promote this industry.”

As here, only continuous subsidies and redistribution of resources to an unproductive and uncompetitive source of energy keeps the alternative energy industry alive, politically and economically.”

“Calzada noted that these are direct job losses. “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to high energy prices,” he said in an interview.”

“The study concludes that the ”policy to promote renewable energy in the UK has an opportunity cost of 10,000 direct jobs in 2009-10 and 1,200 jobs in Scotland”. So British taxpayers, as is the case in the US, are being forced to subsidise a net loss of jobs in a struggling economy.

I suppose it could be worse, though … they could be building electric vans.”

“The renewable energy industry is helping to destroy the UK economy and drive up unemployment says a new report. For every one of David Cameron’s “green jobs” created in the renewable energy sector (mainly solar and wind), another 3.7 jobs are being lost in the real economy, says the independent study by Verso Economics. In total, measurable policies to promote renewable energy cost £1.4 billion in the UK and £168 million in Scotland in 2009/10. But this doesn’t take into account the additional economic damage inflicted by the erection of enormous, bird-chopping monstrosities all over some of Britain’s most attractive tourist spots – including, for example, the hitherto unspoilt island of Tiree.(H/T Michael Daly).”

Why the £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age – and here are the three ‘lies’ that prove it

“Scarcely a day goes by without more evidence to show why the Government’s obsession with wind turbines, now at the centre of our national energy policy, is one of the greatest political blunders of our time.

Under a target agreed with the EU, Britain is committed within ten years — at astronomic expense — to generating nearly a third of its electricity from renewable sources, mainly through building thousands more wind turbines.

But the penny is finally dropping for almost everyone — except our politicians — that to rely on windmills to keep our lights on is a colossal and very dangerous act of self-deception.

Take, for example, the 350ft monstrosity familiar to millions of motorists who drive past as it sluggishly revolves above the M4 outside Reading.

This wind turbine performed so poorly (working at only 15 per cent of its capacity) that the £130,000 government subsidy given to its owners was more than the £100,000 worth of electricity it produced last year.

Meanwhile, official figures haveconfirmed that during those freezing, windless weeks around Christmas, when electricity demand was at record levels, the contribution made by Britain’s 3,500 turbines was minuscule.

To keep our homes warmwe were having to import vast amounts of power from nuclear reactors in France.

Wind turbines are so expensive that Holland recently became the first country in Europe to abandon its EU renewable energy target, announcing that it is to slash its annual subsidy by billions of euros.

So unpopular are wind turbines that our own Government has just offered ‘bribes’ to local communities, in the form of lower council tax and electricity bills.”

“So riddled with environmental hypocrisy is the lobbying for wind energy that a recent newspaper report exposed the immense human and ecological catastrophe being inflicted on northern China by the extraction of the rare earth minerals needed to make the giant magnets that every turbine in the West uses to generate its power.”

“The first is the pretence that turbines are anything other than ludicrously inefficient.

The most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry — and echoed by gullible politicians — is vastly to exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their ‘capacity’, as if this was what they actually produce. Rather, it is the total amount of power they have the capability of producing.

The point about wind, of course, is that it is constantly varying in speed, so that the output of turbines averages out at barely a quarter of their capacity.

This means that the 1,000 megawatts all those 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average into the grid is derisory: no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station.

Furthermore, as they increase in number (the Government wants to see 10,000 more in the next few years) it will, quite farcically, become necessary to build a dozen or more gas-fired power stations, running all the time and emitting CO2, simply to provide instant back-up for when the wind drops.”

“The second great lie about wind power is the pretence that it is not a preposterously expensive way to produce electricity. No one would dream of building wind turbines unless they were guaranteed a huge government subsidy.

This comes in the form of the Renewables Obligation Certificate subsidy scheme, paid for through household bills, whereby owners of wind turbines earn an additional £49 for every ‘megawatt hour’ they produce, and twice that sum for offshore turbines.

This is why so many people are now realising that the wind bonanza — almost entirely dominated in Britain by French, German, Spanish and other foreign-owned firms — is one of the greatest scams of our age.

The third great lie is that this industry is somehow making a vital contribution to ‘saving the planet’ by cutting our emissions of CO2 – it is not What other industry gets a public subsidy equivalent to 100 or even 200 per cent of the value of what it produces?

We may not be aware of just how much we are pouring into the pockets of the wind developers, because our bills hide this from us — but as ever more turbines are built, this could soon be adding hundreds of pounds a year to our bills.

When a Swedish firm recently opened what is now the world’s largest offshore windfarm off the coast of Kent, at a cost of £800million, we were told that its ‘capacity’ was 300 megawatts, enough to provide ‘green’ power for tens of thousands of homes.

What we were not told was that its actual output will average only a mere 80 megawatts, a tenth of that supplied by a gas-fired power station — for which we will all be paying a subsidy of £60million a year, or £1.5billion over the 25-year lifespan of the turbines.”

“Then, of course, the construction of the turbines generates enormous CO2 emissions as a result of the mining and smelting of the metals used, the carbon-intensive cement needed for their huge concrete foundations, the building of miles of road often needed to move them to the site,and the releasing of immense quantities of CO2 locked up in the peat bogs where many turbines are built.”

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond reveals his ignorance of wind power

“The fact is that no one would dream of building these absurdly inefficient machines unless they were guaranteed a 100 per cent subsidy through the Renewables Obligation. This forces electricity companies to buy the power produced by onshore wind at twice the market rate, paid by all of us through our electricity bills.In the case of the offshore turbines that the Government is so keen on, this subsidy is doubled to 200 per cent.”

“Britain is moving faster than any other European country to contain a surge in solar power and prevent the boom-and-bust seen in Spain and predicted for the Czech Republic. The risk is scaring off the investors who would create the “green jobs” Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking to revive the economy.

“It’s going to completely kill the market,” said Tim German, renewable energy manager for the local government in Cornwall at the U.K.’s southwest tip. “Investors are starting to get cold feet.”

“The new Dutch right-wing government has announced a radical overhaul of Dutch energy policy. It is cutting subsidies for most forms of renewable energy drastically, and is even putting an end to all subsidies for offshore wind, solar power and largescale biomass.It has also announced a warm welcome for new nuclear power stations – the first time a Dutch government has done so since the Chernobyl-disaster in 1986.”

“It was probably the huge subsidy allocated to a 600 MW offshore wind park by the previous government that induced the new Dutch cabinet to make some drastic changes in the existing subsidy scheme for renewable energy. In May 2010, the previous government announced that the German wind power developer Bard Engineering will receive a whopping (maximum) subsidy of €4.5 billion from the Dutch taxpayer to build two 300 MW offshore wind parks off the country’s northern coast. The new right-wing government, a coalition of the liberal party VVD and the Christian-Democrats CDA, supported by the anti-islam party PVV, decided they would not make the same mistake. During the election campaign, the new Prime Minister, Mark Rutte of the Liberals, had been cynical about the large government support for wind power. ‘Windmills turn on subsidies’, he had said.

Thus, when on 30 November, the new Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, heavyweight Maxime Verhagen, a Christian-Democrat, unveiled the new government’s policy on renewable energy, it was no surprise that this included a large cutback of green subsidies: from about €4 billion a year to just €1.5 billion. The new scheme is more than a cutback, though – it also aims at a radical overhaul of the existing methodology behind the allocation of subsidies. The plan intends to reward and stimulate “efficient” (cheap) forms of renewable energy, such as onshore wind power, and does not support relatively inefficient (expensive) renewables, such as offshore wind.”

“Wind power is very dilute, and thus a large area of land is required to gather significant energy. Wind energy needs a wide network of roads, transmission lines and turbines which degrades any area containing wind farms. It has a huge land footprint.

The operating characteristics of turbine and generator mean that only a small part of wind energy can be captured.

Wind power is also intermittent, unreliable and hard to predict. Therefore large backup or storage systems are required. This adds to the capital and operating costs and increases the instability of the network.

Wind farms are uniformly hated by neighbours and will not be willingly accepted without heavy compensation payments. Their noise, flicker, fire risk and disturbing effect on domestic and wild animals are well documented.

The wind is free but wind power is far from it. Its cost is far above all conventional methods of generating electricity. Either taxpayers or consumers will pay this bill.”

“The blades can only extract part of the energy, thus slowing down the wind in the process. The maximum proportion of the energy that can be extracted by a perfect propeller in a perfect wind is given by the Betz limit and that limit is about 59%. This is referred to as the Power Co-efficient. In the real world the very best turbines in an ideal wind could maybe peak at about 50%. Most large wind turbines built today have a Power Coefficient (PC) of no more than 37%.

If the wind speed is higher or lower than ideal, the PC will be lower. If the wind blows too fast, much kinetic energy slips between the blades and is lost. And in very high winds, the turbines are shut down completely so they do not shake themselves to bits.

But that is not the end of the weaknesses of wind power generation.

The spinning turbine has to be converted into electrical energy at each turbine. This is done using an electric generator. Electrical generators have been used for over 100 years so their technology is mature and their performance well known.

Electric generators achieve maximum efficiency at their design capacity. This is planned to suit the ”average” wind speed, and the generator produces maximum safe output at this speed. If the wind drops, so does the power generated. If the wind rises, the energy generated is limited to the design capacity of the generator (by varying the pitch of the blades) and at some point the generator is shut down to prevent burnout. So the generator cuts off all the high-energy infrequent wind, in order to capture the maximum energy from the winds expected by the turbine designers at that location. These unavoidable operating characteristics of the turbine also reduce the power generated.”

“In percentage terms, how much electricity do Britain’s 3,150 wind ­turbines supply to the ­National Grid?

Is it: a) five per cent; b) ten per cent; or c) 20 per cent? Come on, I’m going to have to hurry you. No conferring.

Time’s up. The correct answer is: none of the above. Yesterday afternoon, the figure was just 1.6 per cent, according to the official website of the wholesale electricity market.

Over the past three weeks, with demand for power at record levels because of the freezing weather, there have been days when the contribution of our forests of wind turbines has been precisely nothing.

It gets better. As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.

Even on a good day they rarely work above a quarter of their theoretical capacity. And in high winds they have to be switched off altogether to prevent damage.

At best, the combined output of these monstrosities is equal only to that of a single, medium-sized, gas-fired power station.”

“WIND power should not be relied on to guarantee electricity supply during hot days, experts say.

Wind turbines operate at less than three per cent of their total generation in hot weather because limits to prevent overheating and a lack of wind can stifle their output when temperatures soar past 35C.

The State Government and the Australian Energy Market Operator yesterday revealed there would be enough electricity in SA today to meet demand and loadshedding and blackouts would not occur from a lack of power. However, AEMO statistics show the amount of electricity generated by wind turbines in hot weather falls to a bare minimum.

”The reduction in wind generation during peak periods, or at the hottest times of the day, is partially attributed to limits placed on some turbines at high temperatures to prevent overheating,” an AEMO spokeswoman said.”

This one is 3 years old but an actual and interesting example of the consequences of the unreliability of wind power when most needed.

HOUSTON (Reuters) – A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.”

“Combine cold temperatures that make steel brittle along with gusty winds, and you have a Titanic recipe for disaster. For those that will argue that I’m being unfair to the promise of wind power, I welcome you to provide photos of any power plant in the USA that has been collapsed due to weather. Downed power poles sure, but power sources?”

“In the case of wind generators if there is a measurable likelihood of fires occurring and

with the lack of constant supervision of such high energy equipment it would be a real expectation that the owners of the generators would be liable for all the fire damage, which could reach into the billions if they caused fires on days of extreme fire danger.”

“It has been reported that about 20 turbines catch fire and burn each year. The global total number of turbines appears to be around 68 000. All these figures are World Wide Web data and some from Wikipedia. They provide a rough guide to quantifying the bushfire risk but should not be taken as definitive. Applying the global data to the 2000 or so turbines installed in Australia we would expect a 60% probability of one turbine fire each year.”

“Off shore wind farms cost twice as much to produce electricity as gas and coal powered stations and will need subsidies for at least 20 years, a major report warns.

But costs of building the farms have doubled due to spiralling prices for steel and the drop in the value of the pound.

The running costs are also increasing.

The report found that costs have risen for all kinds of generation but off shore wind farms remain by far the most expensive – 90 per cent more than fossil fuel generators and 50 per cent more than nuclear. “

“In summary, the Netherlands experience is that at wind penetration of about 3% the fossil fuel and CO2 emissions saving is reduced to zero. As wind penetration is increased, the Colorado and Texas experience shows that the savings become negative, that is, fossil fuel and CO2 emissions are increased.”

“German lawmakers passed on Thursday a law cutting solar power subsidies by up to 15 percent from this summer, six months earlier than originally planned, dealing a blow to the world’s biggest photovoltaic market.

The lower parliamentary house voted to introduce the cuts for roof installations from July and for ground-based cell assemblies from September.”

“The Spanish and Germans are doing it. So are the French. The British might have to do it. Austerity-whacked Europe is rolling back subsidies for renewable energy as economic sanity makes a tentative comeback. Green energy is becoming unaffordable and may cost as many jobs as it creates.”

“Sunny Spain became the world’s top solar power producer. Since 2002, about €23-billion has been invested in Spain’s photovoltaic (PV) industry, which sucked up €2.7-billion in subsidies in 2009 alone, or more than 40 per cent of the freebies doled out to the country’s entire renewables sector.”

“Renewable energy is fraught with difficulties. In less-sunny climates, PV panels make little sense, though that hasn’t stopped Germany and Britain from installing them on rooftops everywhere. Wind power is becoming hugely popular in some parts of the world. But since the wind doesn’t always blow, backup power has to be installed. That means consumers have to pay for the capacity twice and the backup power is usually of the fossil-fuel variety. Denmark, which has a reputation as the cleanest of the clean countries, actually generates about half its electricity from coal, the grubbiest fuel. That proportion hasn’t varied in a decade in spite of the country’s relentless pursuit of wind power.”

The haul included no fewer than 43 wind and solar energy companies and around 100 properties including swank villas with swimming pools in Sicily’s western Trapani region, along with cars, a catamaran and bank accounts, the interior ministry said.

The infiltration of organised crime into the renewable energy sector is ”a combination that is only now coming to light” in terms of legal action, said Abbate, a specialist in Mafia affairs who is under police protection.”

Steve Goreham (”Climatism”) quotes US and UK electricity generating costs (excluding the cost of carbon permits and the cost of backup generating facilities for wind and solar):

Goreham (p272) also compares the planned London Array offshore wind field with the planned Kingsnorth Coal fired plant and concludes:

”The wind turbine array requires 563 times more land than the coal plant and delivers electricity intermittently at twice the cost.”

So I thought it would be interesting to look at the statistics for Swedish wind power during the last 30 days. When we had record cold and snow all over the world. Just now it is – 10C outside and the snow is deep.

This is the combined statistics from the Swedish wind turbines and the big wind farms during the last 30 days.

The total combined output today is 12%of capacity.

And during the bitterest cold days the output dropped50 %in two days (Now 29-Dec 1). And 74% in 4 days (Nov 29-Dec 3).

Imagine if this had been the main power source during this week? Thank God that we have nuclear power and water power (hydropower) covering 95% of our needs in Sweden.

AND THESE ARE EXACTLY THE POWER SOURCES OUR POLITICIANS AND THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERICS WANT TO BAN AND ABOLISH!

They really want us back to the Stone Age to “reduce” our “carbon footprint”.

Here are just a few examples of what the statistics show during the last three winters:

The total combined output at 3%, 4%, 6% or 9% during cold periods when the output is MOST NEEDED. And a drop in output of 84% in two days. Or a 98 % drop in three days. Or a 67% drop in one day.

Here are some more examples of drop in output during the winter 2008-2009:

50 % in 1 DAY (18/3).

89 % in 2 DAYS (23-25/1).

98 % in 3 DAYS (23-26/1).

84 % in 2 DAYS (12-14/1).

84 % in 2 DAYS (22-24/12).

67 % in 1 DAY (10/12).

50 % in 1 DAY (11/12).

87 % in 3 DAYS (27-30/11)

These figures are the norm. It shows one thing beyond any doubt, how fundamental unreliable the wind power is. Especially when it is needed most. Which in it self is very obvious, except for our intelligent politicians and the Global warming Hysterics, because of the nature of that power.

Imagine running a hospital, or a process industry like steal or pulp, and you loose 67% of your power during one day? With figures like that you have to shut down parts of a country, whole industries, city’s etc.

And with a drop of 84% in two days, or 98% in three days, you have to effectively shut down the whole country.

Back to the Stone Age in two days.

And how long do you think the people and the modern societies would survive WITHOUT electricity? And what kind of life that would be?

And then you could look at the huge economic cost for wind power. The huge state and local subsidies on all levels – which make it a very profitable business for the owner and very, very expensive for the consumers. The extra power that has to be built to compensate for wind powers notorious unreliability (the standard is around 20-25 % of its capacity). The need to upgrade the grid. Not to mention its sharp swings up and downs when delivering power.

You can also mention the short lifespan and huge replacement and service cost for these turbines. And the noise they produce to their neighbors delight. The huge number of birds being killed just to mention a few other “benefits”.

“Funny enough”, a lot of these birds are usually on the national protected species act.

But that doesn’t seem to bother the Global Warming Hysterics a bit. Which otherwise would not hesitate to stop huge industrial/ power projects which are beneficial for the country and the people, just because there is one pair of protected species there.

What a brilliant future the Global Warming Hysterics have in store for humankind. And remember they have publicly said and written that they would like to halve, or even cut in two thirds, the world population. Well, wind power is on way of getting about it.

These people are so caring are they not? And they REALLY love humankind.

Here are just a few examples around the world of the record cold and snow in November and beginning of December; that humans are responsibly fore according to the Global Warming Hysteria and “science”.

And last year it was the same story – “Global Warming” Record Cold and Snow. This “settled science” that is called Global Warming (Hysteria) works in mysterious ways I have to say.

“Almost all of the Austin area had freezing temperatures overnight into this morning and Austin-Bergstrom International Airport set a new record this morning when it reached 22 degrees there, according to Clay Anderson, a meteorologist with National Weather Service.

The old record for cold temperatures at ABIA on Nov. 27th was 28 degrees in 1975, Anderson said.”

“Once again, a new record-low temperature for this winter was recorded Friday evening in Lapland. According to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, the thermometer dipped to -34 degrees Celsius at Kevojärvi in the area of Utsjoki in the far north. “

“Stockholm is forecast to experience its coldest seasonal temperatures for over 100 years this week as winter weather takes hold of the country, according to the Swedish Meteorological Institute (SMHI).”

“Stockholm registered -11 degrees Celsius at the weekend, the coldest November temperature since 1965 and the mercury is set to plunge further on Wednesday and Thursday, dropping as low as -15.

”It is far below average temperatures, which usually oscillate around zero at this time of the year,” said Alexandra Ohlsson, a meteorologist with SMHI.”

“Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years

So far, the results have been lower temperatures: for example, in Central Russia, they are a couple of degrees below the norm.

“Although the forecast for the next month is only 70 percent accurate, I find the cold winter scenario quite likely,” Vadim Zavodchenkov, a leading specialist at the Fobos weather center, told RT. “We will be able to judge with more certainty come November. As for last summer’s heat, the statistical models that meteorologists use to draw up long-term forecasts aren’t able to predict an anomaly like that.”

“People in most of Eastern Washington were told Monday to prepare for a rare blizzard as the first severe storm of the winter blasted through the state, though weather officials said it was too early to tell if the rough weather would affect Thanksgiving holiday travel later in the week.

Mike Fries at the weather service office in Spokane said it was the first blizzard warning the office had issued since it opened in the mid-1990s.”

“HEAVY snowfall across many parts of the UK has left farmers fearing another big freeze after last year’s weather cost millions in damage to farm buildings.

The UK’s earliest widespread snowfall since 1993, the weekend showers have seen roads closed across Scotland and the north of England, with some 15cms of snow falling in the Durham area.”

“The news will bring back memories of last winter when heavy snow across the UK saw a rise in stock losses, widespread building damage, milk collections unable to get on to dairy farms and livestock stranded as farmers struggled to cope.”

“Californians can expect a warmer but mostly wet weekend after a Thanksgiving cold snap broke or tied cold-temperature records — some more than a century old.

The mercury in Los Angeles dropped to 42, tying a 1946 record. Stockton saw a record low temperature of 27 degrees Thursday morning, while Sacramento tied a record low of 30.

The National Weather Service reports that San Francisco’s low of 42 degrees on Thursday tied a record set back in 1892. Across the bay in Oakland, 36-degree daytime temperatures shattered the old record of 42.

Bakersfield and Fresno both saw a record-lowest high temperature of 49.”

“Electricite de France SA’s power grid expects record demand today and tomorrow amid a cold snap that has increased the country’s reliance on imports.

Demand for electricity may reach 93,900 megawatts this evening and 94,200 megawatts tomorrow, Reseau de Transport d’Electricite, EDF’s wholly owned grid operator, said in a statement. France’s record for power demand is 93,100 megawatts set on Feb. 11, when temperatures were also colder than normal.”

“11 Degrees lower than normal temperatures: daytime temperatures in the capital on Wednesday was 16.7, the normal temperature is 11 degrees. Usually, the last days of November, mercury stays around 28 degrees.”

I have from day one written many, many posts in this blog about the intimidation of people and blatant censoring of facts done in the name of ”science” and Global Warming Hysteria. And that the Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with saving the Earth or the environment. It has always been a political agenda.

I have written extensible (over 120 of posts) about the scam called Cap and Trade, – the Biggest Heist in History- where BOTH BUYER AND SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prize. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation.

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAMthat puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

Therefore it is refreshing to se that more and more of the Global warming Hysterics are coming out from behind their masks and are openly admitting their political agenda.

The latest one is Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III. He is also the deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology. He will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change”.

Here are some direct quotes from an article in Neue Zürcher Zeitung November 14:

“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War….there is no getting around the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.”

“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this, is obvious.

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

“But then we need to see that a successful climate policy must specify a different global trade and financial policy.”

“And in developed countries, we have realized that for a climate protection target of two degrees neither purely technical solutions nor life style change will be sufficient. The people here in Europe, have the grotesque idea that shopping in the health food stores or in electric cars solved the problem. This is arrogant, because the ecological footprint of our lifestyle has increased in the last 30 years, despite the eco-movement.”

“There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.”

“What we need to look for is an oasis that is the non-carbon global economy. It’s about the common departure for this oasis.”

The first Tsunami wave is just rolling in over the Washington establishment.

Sitting here late at night (02:35 am) and watching the American election drama unfold minute by minute via a lot of different channels; I just want to say one thing – it is an honour to see a democracy in action where the common people are sending a very strong and clear message to the political elite. And are actually throwing them out.

And folks, this could NOT happen in Europe. So you should be really proud of yourself.

And remember, this is just the first wave!

This is a picture of the first early results in the house in the states where the polling stations have closed:

And this is a picture of the first early results in the senate in the states where the polling stations have closed:

YOU MUST VOTE!

I am going to finish this 10 part series in the same way as I started it: YOU MUST VOTE!

So go and vote for some you can trust (yeah I know it’s hard), some one that upholds the constitution and knows what it actually means (yeah, there are not many left), some one that want to rein in the Big Government Agenda and REALLY means it (yeah I know, there are many turncoats), and some one that want to protect YOUR liberty, freedom and the American way of life (yeah, that’s another hard one).

There is in the end only one way you can judge them – By their actions.

Your vote REALLY MATTERS! This time more than ever!

Sooo much is at stake this time – The constitution, the American way of life with freedom and free markets. America is at a crucial crossroads.

Do you want a government for the elites, of the elites and by the elites?

Or a government for the people, of the people and by the people?

It is YOUR CHOICE! A very clear choice! You have to get out and flood the voting booths November 2.

And if you don’t choose, it’s going to be the former.

The turnout of voting-age population in the mid term elections 2006 – 37,1%, and 2002 – 37.0% was pathetic and a joke. 63 % of the voting age population apparently doesn’t care what is happening to their country.

If you don’t wake up now when will you ever do? You have to stand up for freedom and liberty. Or sit back and let the American dream become a nightmare.

”All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826.

America, your whole system has been hijacked, and you have done nothing, so far, to stop it. What the Obama administration has done during the last one and half year makes a mockery of your constitution and the principle of separation of power.”

These are the “representatives” that rammed through the Obama Care, the financial bill, etc., against the will of the people. They don’t care about the constitution, and they don’t know the difference between the declaration of Independence and the Constitution; and they don’t care that they don’t know.

The people in congress who voted for these bills, this is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED AND INTENDED with these bills. But to get it through Congress they gladly and willfully lied through their teeth and ears, they even gladly put their lies in writing.

Why? Because they are ramming through their political agenda which they have been waiting and planning so long for to be able do.

In short, it is very troubling to see a country on a path of economic and political self destruction. But if the present trend continues you are, to put it simple: toast.

It’s time for the people of America to take their country back. Otherwise the consequences for you as a country are going to be devastating. Especially for the common people.

Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.

I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron.They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.

Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.

Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?

No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability.Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.

Armed with the panoply of lawmaking, these moonstruck fools for power go about in a jealous rage. They fear power’s charms may be lavished elsewhere, even for a moment.

Democrats hate success. Success could supply the funds for a power elopement. Fire up the Learjet. Flight plan: Grand Cayman. Democrats hate failure too. The true American loser laughs at legal monopoly on force. He’s got his own gun.

Democrats hate productivity, lest production be outsourced to someplace their beloved power can’t go. And Democrats also hate us none-too-productive drones in our cubicles or behind the counters of our service economy jobs. Tax us as hard as they will, we modest earners don’t generate enough government revenue to dress and adorn the power that Democrats worship.

Democrats hate stay-at-home spouses, no matter what gender or gender preference. Democratic advocacy for feminism, gay marriage, children’s rights, and “reproductive choice” is simply a way to invade -power’s little realm of domestic private life and bring it under the domination of Democrats.

Democrats hate America being a world power because world power gives power to the nation instead of to Democrats.

And Democrats hate the military, of course. Soldiers set a bad example. Here are men and women who possess what, if they chose, could be complete control over power. Yet they treat power with honor and respect. Members of the armed forces fight not to seize power for themselves but to ensure that power can bestow its favors upon all Americans.

This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.

P. J. O’Rourke, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, is the author of a new book, Don’t Vote: It Just Encourages the Bastards (Atlantic Monthly Press).

Twenty months ago, on February 19, 2009, business reporter Rick Santelli of CNBC took to the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to deliver his famous rant against government bail-outs, and call for “a Chicago tea party.”

Santelli may have sparked the Tea Party movement. But he only tapped into outrage that had been growing in many of us for decades.

For too long, you and I have watched helplessly as a clique of politicians, intellectuals, activists, and bureaucrats from both parties have tried to obliterate our Constitution, our capitalist system, and our personal liberty. This “bipartisan Ruling Class”—as scholar Angelo Codevilla describes it—sees itself as a moral, cultural, and intellectual elite. Codevilla says that “Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits.”

Oozing sanctimonious arrogance, viewing the rest of us as coarse, unsophisticated rubes who cling bitterly to guns and bibles, this class seeks to impose its own supposedly superior values and visions upon the rest of us, by force of law.

As we know too well, the ultimate goal of our Ruling Class is power. They exist—not to produce, not to invent, not to create—but to manipulate and master others.Ronald Reagan memorably summed up the Ruling Class’s governing outlook this way: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

By contrast, the rest of us Americans seek power over circumstances, but not over each other. We acquire our personal sense of identity and self-esteem through productive work—not through imposing our will, values, and visions on our neighbors. We accept a “live and let live” philosophy.

This is the spirit embodied in our “Declaration of Independence.” That document was more than a declaration of political independence from our European rulers; it was a declaration of the moral independence of every human being. It was a declaration of each individual’s moral right to his own life, his own liberty, his own pursuit of happiness.

This is the vision enshrined in our Constitution. That governing framework grants to public officials only specific, enumerated, and narrowly limited powers. As James Madison and the other Framers made explicitly clear, the Constitution was intended—for the first time in human history—to bridle the authority of politicians and bureaucrats, and thus to protect the moral right of Americans to go about our lives without interference.

So, the Constitution imposes upon government officials a host of constraints: separations of powers, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights. By constraining government, citizens enjoy the fruits of freedom.

Which explains why, since the early twentieth-century Progressive Era, Ruling Class power-seekers have targeted the Constitution for annihilation. The regimes of Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt subjected constitutional limitations on power to systematic, bipartisan attack. So did the “New Deal” of Franklin Roosevelt and the “Great Society” of Lyndon Johnson.

In our time, the clamor against individual rights and constitutional constraints on power has risen to a crescendo. And that is why we’re here. Today’s Ruling Class consists of the intellectual heirs of the earlier progressives. From Obama to McCain, from Arianna Huffington to David Gergen, from George Soros to Michael Bloomberg, our Beltway grandees continue to impart their wisdom and good taste upon us by law—telling us what to eat, what our children should learn and in what kind of schools, what vehicles we should travel in, what fuels should power them, where we should live, where our thermostats should be set, what we should grow, how we should use our land, with whom we should engage in business, what we should sell and at what prices, what portion of our earnings we may be allowed to keep, what “good causes” we must support, what language we must use in conversations about “sensitive” topics ranging from race to romance to religion, what medical coverage we must have, who must provide it, and at what price, and on, and on, and on.

It goes on without limit, because our Ruling Class accepts no limits, legal or moral, on its power to “do good” to us. We are mere mortar and bricks for their social engineering.Like missionaries visiting primitive tribes, they view us as savages, whom they must cage and civilize.

We see their boundless arrogance in Barack Obama, who tells his fellow Ruling Class members that “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” with his nose held so high in the air that any passing rainstorm would waterboard him. We see it in Senator John Kerry when, like some monarch, he refers to himself in the third person. We see it in Barney Frank, the only human on the planet who is able to strut even while sitting. We see it in Harry Reid, who told us the other day that, “But for me, we’d be in a world-wide depression.” We see it in Nancy Pelosi, who—when asked where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to order us to buy health insurance—replied: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Never mind that the Ruling Class and its progressive policies have failed miserably to achieve their announced objectives. For more than a century, countless government programs have plundered untold trillions of dollars from taxpayers, then redirected them, supposedly to eradicate poverty, to end unemployment, to prevent disastrous business cycles, to put everyone in his own home.

But what do we see? Record levels of people on food stamps; soaring unemployment rates; a recession longer and deeper than any since the 1930s; a debacle in the housing market. Yet, what does the Ruling Class do in response? It demands more power to enact more of the same.

They say that a sure sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different outcome. By that criterion, progressives are bat-crap crazy.

But then, what are we, if we re-elect them?

Bad as this is, it is even more sickening to watch ambitious young men and women trying desperately to enter the Ruling Class, then rise through its corrupt ranks, in their lust for power and position. For an example, look no farther than our freshman congressman in Maryland’s First District. In his disgustingly dishonest campaign ads, as well as his voting record, Frank Kratovil has demonstrated that he’ll eagerly sell his soul for a seat at a Ruling Class table.

Mr. Kratovil has spent most of his campaign running away from his voting record—even from his party affiliation. From his ads, you would think he’s running as an “Independent,” not a Democrat. He demonstrates this independence by voting with his party 84.6 percent of the time—then accepting well over a million dollars in campaign contributions from party coffers.

Consider his votes on ObamaCare. Like Hamlet, Mr. Kratovil spent a year in anguished public indecision. This waffling persisted all the way to the last week before the final vote, while Nancy Pelosi collected the backing she needed to pass the bill. Then, after Pelosi had lined up enough support to let him off the hook, Kratovil first voted for ObamaCare to proceed to a final vote, then announced he would vote against the final bill on the floor. But since then, he has refused to back a bill to repeal ObamaCare.

Doing John Kerry one better, Kratovil was for ObamaCare before he was against it, before he was for it once again. This, he says, demonstrates his independence from the Democratic party line.

On the other big bills of the past two years—namely, the “stimulus” and “cap and tax” bills—this self-described “fiscal conservative” voted to add more than one-and-a-half trillion dollars to the government credit card. The stimulus boondoggle poured billions of tax dollars into pork projects for public-employee unions. Meanwhile, cap-and-tax was designed to clobber the oil, coal, and natural-gas industries, and to raise your energy costs $1600 per household. Kratovil voted for other earmarks and pork projects, too.

Two years ago, Frank Kratovil boarded a flight headed into Ruling Class territory. He’s well on his way—unless you cancel his flight on November 2nd.

Happily, I think that will happen. And it will happen to many other members of the self-appointed elite. Signs are everywhere that people are, at last, wising up and fighting back. Your presence here today is one of those signs.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve been paying close attention to politics since I was a teenager in the 1960s. I’ve never been so optimistic about America’s future—and you are a major reason for that. For nearly half a century, I wrote and preached about our lost liberties and endangered rights, feeling like a lonely voice in the wilderness. But now, millions of voices are carrying that message.

However, we can’t stop on November 2nd. Our next task must be to transform the Republican Party into something more than an auxiliary chapter of the Ruling Class clique. The GOP has pretended for decades to be the party of freedom, capitalism, and limited government. And it has betrayed those principles repeatedly.

But we have not just a political party, but a cultural legacy, to reclaim—a legacy often described as American individualism. From our nation’s earliest days, when our pioneer ancestors blazed trails through forbidding frontiers, we Americans havenever viewed ourselves as victims of circumstances. Fiercely self-assertive, proudly independent, we, more than any other people on earth, view ourselves as masters of our fates, as captains of our souls.

The spirit of American individualism, and the moral quest for personal liberty, motivated the Foundersto pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause. It is a cause for which many have fought and died, so that we don’t have to.

So, let us win a peaceful victory for that cause on November 2nd—and then, in the words of Washington, let us continue in the months and years ahead to raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair.

“We now know that federal employees across the nation owefully $1 billion in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.

As in, 1,000 times one million dollars.”

“Now, back taxes have been a problem for the Obama-Biden administration. You may recall early on that Tom Daschle was the president’s top pick to run the Health and Human Services Department. But it turned out the former Democratic senator, who was un-elected from South Dakota in 2004, owed something like $120,000 to the IRS for things from his subsequent benefactor that he just forgot to pay taxes on. You know how that is. $120G’s here or there. So he dropped out.

And then we learned this guy Timothy Geithner owed something like $42,000 in back taxes and penalties to the IRS, which is one of the agencies that he’d be in charge of as secretary of the Treasury.The fine fellow who’s supposed to know about handling everyone else’s money. In the end this was excused by Washington‘s bipartisan CYA culture as one of those inadvertent accidental oversights that somehow never seem to happen on the side of paying too much taxes.”

“But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama’s very own White House owe the government they’re allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House Mess.

In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS’ parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis’ husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System’s board of governors owe $1,076,733.

Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes.

Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts ”man-caused disasters.” Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a Dutch tourist is aboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants.

Within that department, there reside 4,856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37,012,174.”

Our latest interview with the White House Insider reveals a Democratic Party civil war, with growing opposition to the Obama White House.

“So who do you place the most blame for the Democratic Party’s troubles today? President Obama and his administration -without a doubt. The Obama White House has been a political train wreck from day one, and it isn’t getting any better at the moment. You already know my feelings on that.

Previously you stated that Obama could be re-elected in 2012, and that if he improved himself on the job – that if he took a more active and responsible role as President, that you would support him. Do you still feel that way? Is that what I said? (shakes head) Well…(pauses) Ok, I’ll just come out and say what is already underway, and to hell with the possible consequences to me. I will not support Barack Obama in 2012. That possibility has left the table for me. Based on what I know, what I have been told, what I have seen in recent weeks…no, I cannot support the President for a second term. My concern for the party , for the country…my conscience does not allow me that option any longer. Obama is not fit to be president. He simply does not possess the inclinations necessary to lead the country. And I don’t like saying that. I helped the man get elected. I was in the trenches day after day from city to city helping things get done in 2008…I take no pleasure in saying I was a part of that. And I take no pleasure in saying Obama should not be re-elected in 2012.

That is a very strong statement – anything recent that causes you to now say you will not support Obama in 2012? (Long pause – question is repeated) There is much I have been told, some I know, some more that will probably develop in the coming weeks and months. But you want specifics, right? I understand that…I’ll give you an example of why President Obama is not right for America. He sure as hell has not been right for the party. Not long ago, the president took a meeting. He’s late, which apparently is becoming more and more common with him. The meeting was almost cancelled. In strolls the president, joking with an aide. He plops down on a sofa, leans over and claps another guy on the back asking how he’s been. Apologizes for being late, says he was “held up”. He laughs some more. The meeting begins. After just ten minutes, during which time the president appears to almost totally withdraw into himself, an aide walks in and whispers something to the president, who then nods and quickly stands up, shakes a few hands and tells another aide to update him later on the rest of the meeting. As the president is walking out he is laughing at something yet again. He asked no questions of those at the meeting – not one. He left after just ten minutes, coming in laughing and leaving laughing. His behavior during that brief time he was there was described as “borderline manic”.

Ok, you have already stated previously that the president doesn’t show much interest in the day to day business of being president – why is this example so bad, or different? Care to know what that particular meeting was about on that day?

Certainly. Afghanistan. That meeting was an update on Afghanistan, and the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, could give a -expletive-.

Were you actually there to witness this? No, I was long gone from the White House by then. It was told to me though by someone who was. They were there. First hand. They were also left to apologize to the ones left in the room after the president left. Some of these were military. They were not happy. No…that is not accurate. They were pissed. They didn’t say much at the time, but word got back. They were in shock at the president’s behavior. The country had just lost a number of soldiers the week prior, the public opinion on the war was falling…and the president didn’t seem to care. He arrives late, leaves early, appears to emotionally shut down during the actual discussion, and to then start laughing once again as he is leaving…how does someone reconcile with that kind of behavior? I can’t. It turns my stomach. I didn’t want to believe what I was being told, but I had seen similar kinds of behavior from the president myself, and I can’t dispute the credibility of the source. They have no reason to lie.

So is that one example the real tipping point for you in no longer being willing to support Obama in 2012? Or do you have any others you wish to share? Oh, I have others, though I cannot share all of them at this point because they involve some still in range of potential White House retribution. Then again, I suppose I am still in range of such retribution myself.

What do you mean by retribution? Punishment. Political punishment, and even personal punishment. The powers of a president extend far beyond the Oval Office – you know that. I make my living, and it has been a very good living, working within the system of politics. A president can create considerable…pressure if you will, to limit or even destroy my place in that system. Working with a president is an extraordinary and terrifying thing. In regards to my experience with Obama, it became far less extraordinary and far more terrifying. And it’s getting worse.

Terrifying? Yes, terrifying. To see one’s expectations so disappointed. To see a figure who wields such great power and influence fall so short of the responsibilities of that power and influence…that is terrifying to witness. Initially I developed great fear for my party – for the Democrats whose political careers were being destroyed by this administration and party leader ship. Now I sincerely fear for my country.

– The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001

– The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000.

– The United States has lost a whopping 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

– As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.

– Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

– In 2008, 1.2 billion cellphones were sold worldwide. So how many of them were manufactured inside the United States? Zero.

– Dell Inc. has announced plans to dramatically expand its operations in China with an investment of over $100 billion over the next decade.

– Dell has announced that it will be closing its last large U.S. manufacturing facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Approximately 900 jobs will be lost.

– If our trade deficit with China increases at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.

– As of the end of July, the trade deficit with China had risen 18 percent compared to the same time period a year ago.

– The Census Bureau says 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty, which is the highest number of poor Americans in the 51 years that records have been kept.

“So how many tens of thousands more factories do we need to lose before we do something about it?

How many millions more Americans are going to become unemployed before we all admit that we have a very, very serious problem on our hands?

How many more trillions of dollars are going to leave the country before we realize that we are losing wealth at a pace that is killing our economy?

How many once great manufacturing cities are going to become rotting war zones like Detroit before we understand that we are committing national economic suicide?

The deindustrialization of America is a national crisis. It needs to be treated like one.

If you disagree with this article, I have a direct challenge for you. If anyone can explain how a deindustrialized America has any kind of viable economic future, please do so below in the comments section.

America is in deep, deep trouble folks. It is time to It is time to wake up.”

“In total, over 2 million jobs have been eliminated, in contrast to the over 3 million more jobs Americans were promised if Democrats’ 2009 stimulus plan passed. The only place in America that has exceeded its projected job growth following Democrats’ stimulus is Washington, D.C.”

“The study, ”The Adult Recession: Age-Adjusted Unemployment at Post-War Highs,” adjusts the current unemployment rate to account for demographic differences and finds that the unemployment rate has not fallen below 10.8 percent in the last 12 months. During the worst episode of the recession of the 1980s — the second half of 1982 and the first half of 1983 — unemployment passed 10 percent for 7 months.

The analysis notes that the population is older today than it was in the 1980s, which has the effect of lowering today’s unemployment rate relative to the past. Since they change jobs more frequently and are more likely to move in and out of the labor market, Young people have a higher unemployment rate than older workers. Adjusting for this older workforce shows that the United States is experiencing the weakest labor market since the Great Depression.”

”When you take into account the underemployed as well as the unemployed, the national rate hits 17% and California a staggering 22%.

To put a face on the realities of the underemployed in America under Obamanomincs, reporter Scott Pelley spoke with a fiber-optics engineering manager who has been looking for work for over a year. He just took a job working at a Target. 20% of the unemployed in America have college degrees.

According to the report, 1/3 of the unemployed have been out of work for over a year. This hasn’t happened since the Great Depression.”

“When most people think of occupations requiring fingerprints and police reports, corner bookshop owners don’t spring to mind. Try telling that to Los Angeles,where many used booksellers are required by law to get a police permit and take a thumbprint from every 40-something trying to offload his collection of French poetry.

That’s one scene from a study to be released this week by the Institute for Justice, which has collected dozens of examples of regulations choking economic growth by taxing and over-licensing small businesses. In a survey of eight major cities, the study found that entrepreneurs routinely face obstacles …”

“While Republicans have been taking aim at Democrats voting record, including their backing a $787 billion stimulus that failed to produce the promised jobs and a $500 billion cut to Medicare for Seniors, Democrats have gotten mean with ad hominen attacks.”

”It’s a political game played by both sides of the aisle in every election, of course. But there are indications the midterm election of 2010 is emerging as one of the dirtiest races ever with most of the mud flying from Democratic ramparts.”

“The Democrats are wary of trying to brag about anything, given the bad mood and the recession,” said Eugene Kiely, an official with the FactCheck.org watchdog. ”So they have done relatively few positive ads.

“Increasingly desperate and fearful of a GOP takeover of Congress, the Democratic Party is secretly supporting fake tea party and other third-party candidates in the hopes of diverting votes from Republican contenders.”

“Seeking any advantage in their effort to retain control of Congress, Democrats are working behind the scenes in a number of tight races to bolster long-shot third-party candidates who have platforms at odds with the Democratic agenda but hold the promise of siphoning Republican votes.

The efforts are taking place across the country with varying degrees of stealth. And in many cases, they seem to hold as much risk as potential reward for Democrats, prompting accusations of hypocrisy and dirty tricks from Republicans and the third-party movements that are on the receiving end of the unlikely, and sometimes unwelcome, support.“

In Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate for a suburban Philadelphia House seat, Bryan Lentz, admitted this week that his volunteers helped Jim Schneller — a prominent skeptic of President Obama’s citizenship — collect petitions to run against Mr. Lentz and his Republican opponent, Pat Meehan.

“It is one of the dirtiest moves,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, a vice chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “It’s not as though the Democrats are playing to compete against the third party — they’re helping to build the third party up to make those votes not count.” Calling it “a concerted effort,” Mr. McCarthy added, “In Congressional races, it could steer the tide for the majority.”

“In other efforts, Democrats have tried to keep a lower profile, though they have not always succeeded.

“Democrats are desperate to stop the red tide spreading from the heart of the nation and heading toward the coasts. They are eager to preserve and protect their liberal agenda and extend it in the years to come. They fear that Republican ascendancy in the House might lead to the defunding of several elements of ObamaCare and thus put it on life support until they can deliver the coup de grace in 2012 under a veto-proof majority or a new president.

Democrats are reaching into their bag of tricks. They are going beyond garden-variety tactics such as push polls and misrepresenting their own records, positions, and even identities (including stripping their party designation, the Scarlet D, from ads; hiding the fact that they are incumbents; denying one’s paternity, as in the case of Harry Reid’s son, who went the way of Cher during his campaign and used just his first name, Rory; running away from Barack Obama and their own votes on ObamaCare and the stimulus; pledging to vote to repeal ObamaCare and extend tax cuts for one and all; misrepresenting the views of their opponents; and portraying themselves as Blue Dogs despite being Pelosi Lapdogs). And, of course, they are postponing ethics trials of prominent Democrats until after November 2. “

“Desperate times call for desperate measures, and we are beginning to see the Democrats start to rely on ”dirty tricks” to spoil the fun (because if you have to run from the policies that are destroying your party’s popularity, you have to resort to all means, fair and foul — and mostly foul — to win). Politics is war by another means, and when the Democrats are led by the CookCounty Gang that could not play straight, all sorts of tactics will emerge.

Let’s take a tour across the political landscape and catch some highlights:

The Department of Justice, The Secretary of State Project, Smear Campaigns, Death to the Tea Party, False Flags”

“False, misleading or fraudulent claims have long brought the wrath of juries, judges and government agencies down on perpetrators. So have substandard manufacturing practices.

Who could oppose following the rules, making quality products and being honest? But shouldn’t these values apply where far more is at stake than a few companies, pills, baseball records or bad role models? Shouldn’t we demand that these rules apply to people and actions that have unprecedented impact on lives, livelihoods, liberties and communities throughout the country?

Can we afford to continue having double standards that let government officials violate basic standards of honesty and accountability that they apply “vigorously” to citizens and companies?Why should legislators, regulators and investigators be exempt from rules they devise and impose on everyone else? Shouldn’t we teach our kids that government officials mustn’t lie to us, either?

“Military voters from the land of Lincoln could be shut out of the midterm election after the Justice Department reached an agreement with Illinois that gave the state ”a pass” for violating federal election law, an advocacy group warned Monday. “

“Eric Eversole, a former Justice voting section attorney who runs the nonprofit Military Voter Protection Project, told FoxNews.com the deal effectively lets wayward Illinois election officials off the hook and does little to ensure the state’s military voters get their ballots in time.

”For at least 29 counties, there were absolutely no consequences,” he said. ”Illinois is precisely the reason why you can’t wait until a week before the election to try and resolve a clear violation of military voting rights.”

“Washington, D.C. – Nearly six weeks after receiving a waiver of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which allowed New York to mail absentee ballots to our troops no later than October 1, 2010, the New York State Board of Elections admitted on Tuesday that New York City and several counties failed to meet the deadline and still have not mailed their absentee ballots. [Read more: http://www.fvap.gov/resources/media/ny_delivery_cert.pdf%5D With only 25 days before the election, thousands of New York military voters now stand on the brink of having their voices silenced in the upcoming elections.”

The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights of American democracy. It has been defended for well over 200 years by the sacrifices our men and women in uniform. Yet, when it comes to their right to vote—our military members’ right to choose the next Commander in Chief or their elected representatives—their voices have long been silenced by an electoral process that has failed them. That silence was most evident in the 2008 when thousands of absentee military ballots never received by the military voter or received after the election. The MVP Project is here to defend our military members’ right to vote and to provide them with the very right that they defend

Mayor Bloomberg Slams Board of Elections for Failure to Mail Military Ballots

“Bloomberg told Fox News. ”We send our young men and women overseas to fight and to die for us and we don’t care enough to make sure they get the right to exercise their franchise ? That’s what they’re over there fighting for as much as anything else.”

“Not only did Maryland fight like crazy to deprive soldiers of their constitutional right to vote for state candidates, they might appeal today’s victory for military voters against Maryland. I wonder if the Baltimore Sun will FOIA how much it is costing the taxpayers to litigate so as to avoid mailing ballots to military voters. But Maryland doesn’t seem to be a state that places high priority on military voters. They are more interested in registering 16 year olds to vote and where you can hunt ducks.More on Maryland’s unfortunate position. “

“Eric Holder’s DOJ isn’t interested in making sure our military members’ votes are protected and counted, so PJM is gathering evidence to ensure that problems are reported properly and will be fixed.

Pajamas Media is asking military voters who had problems getting their ballots to send their stories to story@pajamasmedia.com. Why? Because the MOVE Act may likely be rewritten next year, and information about problems you experienced will be essential to get it right in 2012.”

”Sixteen states and territories, at least, blew it and didn’t mail ballots on time. The Maine secretary of state, amazingly, told Fox News last week that compliance has been “pretty impressive.” I’d hate to see what he thinks is pretty “awful.”

”But the Eric Holder Justice Department deserves enormous blame. As far back as February, a manager at the Voting Section told state election officials that the new law was vague and the DOJ didn’t really want to sue anyone. State election officials were flabbergasted and acted accordingly. They assumed compliance with the new law wasn’t a big deal to the DOJ, the agency charged with enforcement.

Then things really got bad. In the spring, the DOJ never provided the Pentagon waiver guidance despite the Pentagon’s repeated requests. And how many lawsuits did the DOJ file despite the multiple states that were facially out of compliance with too-late primary elections? Zero. The summer dribbled away with analysis, talk, and chatter instead of action.”

“In 2008, some 17,000 servicemen and servicewomen mailed home completed ballots that were never counted. The DOJ barely lifted a finger to prevent or prosecute this travesty. What will happen in 2010?”

”Election ’10: The president’s home state gets a pass from the Justice Department on ensuring its soldiers overseas can vote. An administration obsessed with gays in the military doesn’t care about voting rights for GIs.

You can call it a tragedy of errors, a perfect storm of incompetent and uncaring bureaucrats, or you can call it a deliberate attempt to steal what looks to be a close race for both governor and U.S. senator in President Obama’s home state by disenfranchising its servicemen overseas, votes likely to tilt Republican.”

“Meanwhile, the Chicago Board of Elections hand-delivers ballots to inmates in CookCounty Jail. The board doesn’t even wait for the inmates to apply — it brings the applications with the ballots! More than 2,600 inmates have cast ballots — strikingly similar to the 2,600 soldiers who will likely not receive a ballot for Tuesday’s election.”

“Obama Justice Department outrages never cease. The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus.

Mr. Cornyn co-authored a 2009 law mandating that states mail absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before the election. Yet, as former Justice Department lawyer Eric Eversole first reported in The Washington Times last week, the department seems to be encouraging states to apply for waivers so they won’t have to follow that law. More than 17,000 Americans serving overseas were denied the vote in 2008 – but, presumably because military personnel are thought to lean conservative, the liberal Obama administration is in no hurry to correct the situation.

The Justice Department is so unenthusiastic about military voting that its website still lists the old requirement for a shorter 30-day military voting window, rather than the current law mandating 45 days. On the other hand, the Justice Department has no legislative mandate whatsoever to involve itself with helping felons to vote, but its website devotes a large section – 2,314 words – to advising felons how to regain voting privileges.”

Notice, this video was first published on January 3 2010 long before the Obama Care bill was passed

America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians

”America elected you on a promise of hope and change. We trusted you. So we elected you. We regret it. So in 2010…. You Will Lose Big. No more taxes. No more spending. No more socialism. We tried to warn you. But you wouldn’t listen. So now you will pay.We’re taking our country back. From radical leftists and liberals. We’re coming after you.

Blue collar democrats, libertarians, independents, and conservatives. We love our country. We are proud of our founders. And we will fight for our traditions. We don’t want your revolution! “

America Rising Part 2- A Call for the Republican Party to Join!

This is your last chance, Republican Party, to prove to the American voter that you are serious and mean what you say. No more co-opting freshmen to model them to stooges. (read John Trent (R) in WP July 18: “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them”)

Frank Caprio (D) Gubernatorial candidate for Rhode Island:

“I never asked for President Obama’s endorsement. You know, he can take his endorsement and shove it as far as I’m concerned. The reality here is that Rhode Islanders are hurting. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. We had one of the worst floods in the history of the United States a few months back. And President Obama didn’t even do a flyover of Rhode Island like President Bush did when New Orleans had their problems. He ignored us, and now he is coming into Rhode Island and treating us like an ATM machine.”

“Another laugh at Mr. Obama’s expense came when he was responding to a line of questioning from Mr. Stewart that encapsulated the liberal critique of his presidency; namely, that he hasn’t done enough to bring about the promised ”fundamental transformation” of America. For the left, there is a widening audacity gap. Would Mr. Obama have to change his slogan, ”Yes, we can?”the president began. ”I think what I would say is ‘yes, we can, but … .’ ” At that point, Mr. Stewart and the crowd began laughing. The president dude looked a little foolish. Hope and change died with that ”but.”

“The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCMEis spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

”We’re the big dog,” said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME’s political operations. ”But we don’t like to brag.”

A recent Gallup poll piled on bad news for President Obama. At the beginning of 2010 the president enjoyed support from 69% of Hispanics. By May that number was down to 57%. Now just 55% of Hispanics support the president and his liberal agenda.

But what’s going on behind the numbers could possibly be a harbinger of doom for Obama’s re-election in 2012. Across the country conservative Latino organizations are springing up as fast as illegal immigrants are streaming across the border. And these organizations are not content to just conduct meetings and complain about the liberal takeover in Washington. Some are taking action. In Dallas, Amigos de Patriots is launching an online and TV ad campaign called “Vote your Values, Vote Conservative.” The idea is to remind Hispanics that their ancestors fled countries where prosperity was killed by left-wing regimes. The 30-second spots also take on social issues like abortion, a practice that is dear to liberals and Democrats but that the Latino community at large finds offensive.

“In 2006, 17 categories favored Democrats, which helped them take control of the House and Senate from Republicans. Democrats picked up six Senate seats and 30 House seats.

In the Pew Poll, 23 of the 28 categories of voters now favor Republicans. What’s more, 22 of the 28 categories support the GOP by 49 percent or more. There are only four categories of voters that are under 40 percent: those making less than $30,000 a year, at 39 percent; voters who are unaffiliated with a religion, at 37 percent; black voters, at 10 percent; and Democrats, at 8 percent.

What is most remarkable is how far some categories have swung away from Democrats and toward the GOP.

Democrats have lost a significant advantage with women voters, who supported Democrats by a 48 to 41 percent margin in 2006, but who have now flipped to supporting the GOP by 49 to 43 percent.

Voters over 65 years old were for Democrats by a 48 to 42 percent margin four years ago. They now favor Republicans by 52 to 38 percent. That’s a 20 point swing.

Perhaps most damaging for Democrats, they have suffered huge losses among Independents. Democrats were up 7 points in 2006, by 42 to 35 percent. They now are down 19 points, 49 to 30 percent. That’s a 26-point swing.

”The first: the tea party is not a ”threat” to the Republican Party, the tea party saved the Republican Party. In a broad sense, the tea party rescued it from being the fat, unhappy, querulous creature it had become, a party that didn’t remember anymore why it existed, or what its historical purpose was. The tea party, with its energy and earnestness, restored the GOP to itself.

In a practical sense, the tea party saved the Republican Party in this cycle by not going third-party. It could have. The broadly based, locally autonomous movement seems to have made a rolling decision, group by group, to take part in Republican primaries and back Republican hopefuls. (According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, four million more Republicans voted in primaries this year than Democrats, the GOP’s highest such turnout since 1970. I wonder who those people were?)

Because of this, because they did not go third-party, Nov. 2 is not going to be a disaster for the Republicans, but a triumph.

The tea party did something the Republican establishment was incapable of doing: It got the party out from under George W. Bush. The tea party rejected his administration’s spending, overreach and immigration proposals, among other items, and has become only too willing to say so. In doing this, the tea party allowed the Republican establishment itself to get out from under Mr. Bush: ”We had to, boss, it was a political necessity!” They released the GOP establishment from its shame cringe.

And they not only freed the Washington establishment, they woke it up. That establishment, composed largely of 50- to 75-year-olds who came to Washington during the Reagan era in a great rush of idealism, in many cases stayed on, as they say, not to do good but to do well. They populated a conservative infrastructure that barely existed when Reagan was coming up: the think tanks and PR groups, the media outlets and governmental organizations. They did not do what conservatives are supposed to do, which is finish their patriotic work and go home, taking the knowledge and sophistication derived from Washington and applying it to local problems. (This accounts in part for the esteem in which former Bush budget chief and current Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is held. He went home.) “

On a personal note: The material for this post ended up being nearly 60 pages full of quotes, facts, figures, links, videos, reference material etc. Why? Because this is an important subject – directly for the future of the American people and your way of life, indirectly for the rest of the world. But this is way too much to make a meaningful and readable blog post. So I had to drastically cut it down and split it up. My only hope is that I got it reasonable right, you are the judge of that.

So I split this post into different parts: You must vote, The campaign, The voter fraud, Dirtiest election ever, Some points on the economic situation, The Government, All these lies about Obama Care, The speech by Robert Bidinotto and the article by P. J. O’Rourke

You must vote

So go and vote for some you can trust (yeah I know it’s hard), some one that upholds the constitution and knows what it actually means (yeah, there are not many left), some one that want to rein in the Big Government Agenda and REALLY means it (yeah I know, there are many turncoats), and some one that want to protect YOUR liberty, freedom and the American way of life (yeah, that’s another hard one).

There is in the end only one way you can judge them – By their actions.

Your vote REALLY MATTERS! This time more than ever!

Sooo much is at stake this time – The constitution, the American way of life with freedom and free markets. America is at a crucial crossroads.

Do you want a government for the elites, of the elites and by the elites?

Or a government for the people, of the people and by the people?

It is YOUR CHOICE! A very clear choice! You have to get out and flood the voting booths November 2.

And if you don’t choose, it’s going to be the former.

The turnout of voting-age population in the mid term elections 2006 – 37,1%, and 2002 – 37.0% was pathetic and a joke. 63 % of the voting age population apparently doesn’t care what is happening to their country.

If you don’t wake up now when will you ever do? You have to stand up for freedom and liberty. Or sit back and let the American dream become a nightmare.

Five quotations come to mind. All apply describing the present situation:

”All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826.

”No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 – 1962) from her book ”This Is My Story”, 1937.

”It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedomthat it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say … that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.” Etienne de la Boetie’s (French judge, writher, philosopher and “politician” during the16 century), The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin 1706–1790, was written sometime shortly before February 17,1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly.

”Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom”. – Albert Einstein

“President Obama, one of the men behind the Biggest Heist in American History – Cap and Trade, and who at ALL COSTS want to ram through the cap and trade bill, has now put in place an administrative system that allows him, at will, to totally bypass Congress.

After the EPA, Health care bill and now the financial bill, they can sneak it trough in big chunks through administrative orders. Not the whole cap and trade bill at once, but in two, tree maybe four steps.

America, your whole system has been hijacked, and you have done nothing, so far, to stop it. What the Obama administration has done during the last one and half year makes a mockery of your constitution and the principle of separation of power.”

These are the “representatives” that rammed through the Obama Care, the financial bill, etc., against the will of the people. They don’t care about the constitution, and they don’t know the difference between the declaration of Independence and the Constitution; and they don’t care that they don’t know. (see for example my post Obama Care 30)

The people in congress who voted for these bills, this is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED AND INTENDED with these bills. But to get it through Congress they gladly and willfully lied through their teeth and ears, they even gladly put their lies in writing.

Why? Because they are ramming through their political agenda which they have been waiting and planning so long for to be able do.

As I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism.And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda.It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And these guys spends billions and TRILLIONS of $ of our tax money.

While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.

This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.

They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.

How ironic that today most of this parasitic class is leftists and so called “liberals”.

In fact, it is the PERFECT scam and heist – the more they can get you to feel guilty, the more money they earn. And the more control they get over society.

In short, it is very troubling to see a country on a path of economic and political self destruction. But if the present trend continues you are, to put it simple: toast.

It’s time for the people of America to take their country back. Otherwise the consequences for you as a country are going to be devastating. Especially for the common people.

Meanwhile, we STILL await Mr. Obama’s explanation why if his ”historic” health care law is so great for America, it’s not good enough for him and his family.

I have written many, many posts in this blog about the intimidation of people and blatant censoring of facts done in the name of ”science” and Global Warming Hysteria. And that the Global Waming Hysteria has nothing to do with saving the Earth or the environment. It has always been a political agenda.

I have written extensible (over 120 of posts) about the scam called Cap and Trade, – the Biggest Heist in History- where BOTH BUYER AND SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prize. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation.

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAMthat puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

The European model is a carnival of corruption, profiteering, speculation and multi-billion-dollar fraud. It’s done nothing to improve the environment while handing undeserved profits to big business and driving up the cost of energy to consumers.

What they are really advocating is huge price increases in the cost of energy, meaning the cost of everything.

That’s it. That’s their plan.

Anything else they say is a lie.

This is a scam to enrich the corrupt.

As always – Follow the money.

Here are some good videos on the big company, organisations and political money behind the Global Warming Hysteria.

I have written many, many posts in this blog about the intimidation of people and blatant censoring of facts done in the name of ”science” and Global Warming Hysteria. And that the Global Waming Hysteria has nothing to do with saving the Earth or the environment. It has always been a political agenda.

I have written extensible (over 120 of posts) about the scam called Cap and Trade, – the Biggest Heist in History- where BOTH BUYER AND SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prize. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation.

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAMthat puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

The European model is a carnival of corruption, profiteering, speculation and multi-billion-dollar fraud. It’s done nothing to improve the environment while handing undeserved profits to big business and driving up the cost of energy to consumers.

What they are really advocating is huge price increases in the cost of energy, meaning the cost of everything.

“Since 1988, when the greatest scare the world has seen got under way,hundreds of billions of pounds have been poured into academic research projects designed not to test the CO2 warming thesis but to take it as a given fact, and to use computer models to make its impacts seem as scary as possible.

The new global ”carbon trading” market, already worth $126 billion a year, could soon be worth trillions.Governments, including our own, are calling for hundreds of billions more to be chucked into absurd ”carbon-saving” energy schemes, with the cost to be met by all of us in soaring taxes and energy bills.

With all this mighty army of gullible politicians, dutiful officials, busy carbon traders, eager ”renewables” developers and compliant, funding-hungry academics standing to benefit from the greatest perversion of the principles of true science the world has ever seen, who are we to protest that their emperor has no clothes? (How apt that that fairy tale should have been written in Copenhagen.)

Let all that fluffy white ”global warming” continue to fall from the skies, while people shiver in homes that, increasingly, they will find they can no longer afford to heat. We have called into being a true Frankenstein’s monster.It will take a mighty long time to cut it down to size.”

“It has always baffled me that all the good scientists out there mostly in silence allow the shenanigans and charlatans of there craft to destroy the creditability of science as a whole.

A very good description in today’s The Australian of the sad state of the so called “science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria. And the medias and politicians roll in spreading this gospel.

And the censorship and intimidation from the press, media, politicians and fellow “scientists” of everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.”

”Of course, the root of this whole thing is money,” Spann said. ”And, there is a vast amount of wealth being generated by this whole issue. And I always recommend to folks – if anyone speaks on the subject, get a disclosure and find out their financial interests in it.”

He pointed to former Vice President Al Gore as an example of how money behind climate change and global warming alarmism can perpetuate a theory that shouldn’t warrant as much merit otherwise.

”I’m not a politician, don’t understand it – I honestly don’t know,” Spann said. ”But, I will tell you that there’s a lot of people who have gotten very, very wealthy – filthy rich off this subject. I think former Vice President [Al Gore] collects a minimum of $200,000 per speech on this and all of this money – it can corrupt anybody, and I just think it’s all about money.”

Well, finally, more and more real scientists are revolting against the corruption and politicization of science. The latest example is Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics.

“What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)”

“None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake.”

Dissenting members ask APS to put their policy statement on ice due to Climategate

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge?It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer ”explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary was interviewed today by the Independent on “Global warming”:

”The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat… I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 years’ time. It’s horseshit.”

”Nobody can argue that there isn’t climate change. The climate’s been changing since time immemorial,” he said.

”Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it’s all a load of bullshit. But it’s amazing the way the whole fucking eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven’t risen in the past 12 years, they say ‘climate change’.”

”Well, hang on, we’ve had an ice age. We’ve also had a couple of very hot spells during the Middle Ages, so nobody can deny climate change. But there’s absolutely no link between man-made carbon, which contributes less than 2 per cent of total carbon emissions [and climate change].”

He suggested scientists had invented and perpetuated the theory in order to gain research grants. ”Scientists argue there is global warming because they wouldn’t get half of the funding they get now if it turns out to be completely bogus,” he said.

”The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat… I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 years’ time. It’s horseshit.”

He mocked global warming campaigners, describing the United Nations as ”one of the world’s most useless organisations”, its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as ”utter tosh”, and US politician Al Gore as someone who ”couldn’t even get fucking re-elected” after a boom.

“President Obama, one of the men behind the Biggest Heist in American History – Cap and Trade, and who at ALL COSTS want to ram through the cap and trade bill, has now put in place an administrative system that allows him, at will, to totally bypass Congress

After the EPA, Health care bill and now the financial bill, they can sneak it trough in big chunks through administrative orders. Not the whole cap and trade bill at once, but in two, tree maybe four steps.

America, your whole system has been hijacked, and you have done nothing, so far, to stop it. What the Obama administration has done during the last one and half year makes a mockery of your constitution and the principle of separation of power.”

These are the “representatives” that rammed through the Obama Care, the financial bill, etc., against the will of the people. They don’t care about the constitution, and they don’t know the difference between the declaration of Independence and the Constitution; and they don’t care that they don’t know.

The people in congress who voted for these bills, this is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED AND INTENDED with these bills. But to get it through Congress they gladly and wilfully lied through their teeth and ears, they even gladly put their lies in writing.

Why? Because they are ramming through their political agenda which they have been waiting and planning so long for to be able do.

As I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism. And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And these guys spends billions and TRILLIONS of $ of our tax money.

While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.

This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.

They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.

How ironic that today most of this parasitic class is leftists and so called “liberals”.

In fact, it is the PERFECT scam and heist – the more they can get you to feel guilty, the more money they earn. And the more control they get over society.

In short, it is very troubling to see a country on a path of economic and political self destruction. But if the present trend continues you are, to put it simple: toast.

Just one small example – the increase in federal taxes and regulations (EPA, Healthcare etc.), the cost of running a business has increased so much during the last year that it has become in many ways uninteresting. On top of that, the huge tax increases that is coming January first next year.

Not to speak about all the uncertainties what is going to happen in the near future.

As more and more people are discovering this and becoming aware of this the biggest heist in American history (see the letter below), President Obama, and his administration, is not doing so well. His approval index is at bottom. As is all the other indicators (see below).

It’s time for the people of America to take their country back. Otherwise the consequences for you as a country are going to be devastating. Especially for the common people. .

Meanwhile, we STILL await Mr. Obama’s explanation why if his ”historic” health care law is so great for America, it’s not good enough for him and his family.

In today’s dangerous world, we need a president with experience, leadership and courage. Unfortunately, you have shown us little of those traits.

Your childhood and younger years denied you the opportunity to grow up as an American man, and that is no fault of your own. Unfortunately, your lack of empathy for and experience of a traditional American upbringing has left you out of touch with those of us who grew up learning the traditions and work ethic of our predecessors.

You have never accepted the honor of military service, or held and survived in any sort of entry-level working position. You are bereft of many of the basic building blocks of a true American personality and worldview.

You have never experienced the icy hand of fear caressing your gut during a firefight when your very survival from second to second depends on your luck, wits, fellow troopers and the grace of God. You have never sweated out a payroll when your receivables are late.

You’ve missed the rewarding feeling of flogging a loaded truck all night to deliver a load 500 miles away at 7 a.m. You never shoveled cow manure for less than minimum wage to earn enough for a rattletrap car. You missed out on greasing dump trucks on the night shift, and never had the opportunity to start out cleaning restrooms and sweeping floors in a factory.

Your education was in the law, and you ignored any opportunity to absorb the lessons of history or the theories of economics. You have never experienced the law of the jungle in the private sector.

While you play golf and basketball and surround yourself with ”the swells” enjoying concerts in the People’s House, those of us in the general public dine on Spam and Costco burgers. I can’t put my wife on a 747 and send her to Spain so she can be ready to spend 10 days on Martha’s Vineyard when she gets back. She works seven days a week and so do I — spreading four full- and part-time jobs between us to make ends meet.

(My explanation: ”Let them eat cake” is the traditional translation of the French phrase ”Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”, supposedly said by a French princess upon learning that the peasants had no bread. As brioche is a luxury bread enriched with eggs and butter, it would reflect the princess’s obliviousness to the nature of a famine.)

I watch in pain while my business venture slides into oblivion and my small IRA erodes as your economic policies push the nation into a double-dip recession. This economy is locking up again, and you cannot blame former President Bush. The great construction jobs I created are ending while you pour trillions in borrowed money into the public sector to buy votes. I blame you personally for appointing the ship of fools you have as Cabinet officials and advisers.

You are repeating the gross mistakes of Japan in the ’90s and the Roosevelt administration in the ’30s — both of which failed and lengthened severe economic problems for a decade or more. You are intentionally smothering our private sector with regulations, taxes and mandates at the same time you squander the wages and futures of our children and grandkids.

I deplore your continued efforts to divide the greatest nation of immigrants in the world along race and class lines. Pandering to various groups and attempting to set them against other Americans is demagoguery at its worst. I sincerely hope such actions end up damaging you in the end and not our country.

You will leave office with a big pension, Secret Service protection and gold-plated health care for life. I may well end up with 40 years of hard work down the drain, living in a mobile home in the backwoods.

I do not resent you for your good fortune — you worked hard to become president and won the election fair and square. I do, however, despise your policies and the damage they are visiting on our nation, its economy and our future. I have dedicated my remaining years to fighting you and your policies and protecting our children’s futures.

I may well end up destroyed financially from the results of your misguided and dangerous actions — but you will never break me psychologically or crush my spirit. I am a Marine, I have a wonderful wife and family, and last but not least, I live in the greatest nation in the world. I shall work to my last breath to keep it that way, and you, sir, shall fail to destroy that dream.

• Howard, a Marine Corps veteran, University of Washington graduate and heavy-equipment supervisor for two decades, is now a developer with projects in Washington and Oregon.

“21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card we are releasing today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.”

“We’ve been told this report is the gold standard. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal.”

Corruption: The carbon trading system being pushed here has spawned crime and fraud across the pond. Cap-and-trade is not about saving the planet. It’s about money and power, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.

All across Europe authorities have been conducting raids, rounding up individuals involved in a new version of Climate-gate. This time the data aren’t corrupted. Europe‘s Emissions Trading System is. The system is so sick, it’s turned out to be a scam built upon a scam.

Twenty-five people have been arrested in raids by British and German authorities as part of a pan-European crackdown on carbon credit VAT tax fraud.

U.K. officials announced raids on 81 offices and homes, nabbing 13 people in England and eight in Scotland. The operation involved 450 investigators from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs office.

German authorities raided 230 locations, including the headquarters of Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt and the offices of RWE, one of the largest energy firms in Europe. The German operation involved 1,000 investigators targeting 50 companies and 150 suspects.

The amount of money involved in carbon trading is huge and the temptations vast. While our Congress demagogues about banks and their ”complex financial instruments,” they are simple compared to cap-and-trade, which as we have noted involves essentially the buying and selling of air. Throw in an oppressive value-added tax and you have a recipe for corruption and fraud.

Last December, Europol, the European criminal intelligence agency, announced that Emissions Trading System fraud had resulted in about 5 billion euros in lost revenues as Europe’s carbon traders schemed to avoid paying Europe’s VAT and pocket the difference. In announcing the raids, the agency said that as much as 90% of Europe‘s carbon trades were the result of fraudulent activity.

”Carbon markets are highly susceptible to fraud, given their complexity and the fact that it’s not always clear what is being traded,” says Oscar Reyes of Carbon Trade Watch.

Climate change has been found to be a fraud. Now the system to fight it has been. Yet it’s that system the administration and others want to establish here through cap-and-trade legislation such as Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer.

As we also have noted, the mechanism for such phantom carbon trading here has already been established in the form of the Chicago Climate Exchange. The Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start CCX when Barack Obama sat on its board.

CCX founder Richard Sandor estimates the climate trading market could be ”a $10 trillion dollar market.” It is an invitation to fraud that would make Europe‘s ETS scandal seem like petty theft.

In 2000, according to Joyce Foundation records, $347,600 was allocated to NorthwesternUniversity‘s KelloggGraduateSchool of Management, where Sandor was a research professor, ”to design a Midwestern pilot program for the voluntary trading of carbon dioxide and other emissions that cause climate change.”

Now President Obama would make such carbon trading mandatory, limit total emissions and make carbon as valuable a commodity as booze during Prohibition.

The Joyce Foundation’s two grants totaled just over $1 million.CCX has proved very lucrative for Sandor, whose 8 million shares in the exchange has grown to more than $260 million even before a national cap-and-trade system like Europe‘s is established.

Al Gore, who recently increased his carbon footprint by spending $8.9 million on an oceanview villa near Santa Barbara, Calif., sitting on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa, fountains, five bedrooms, nine bathrooms and no fewer than six fireplaces, is co-founder of Generation Investment Management LLP, the fifth largest shareholder in CCX.

The largest shareholder is, uh, Goldman Sachs. Other CCX founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs. Presumably they know a lot about playing shell games with other people’s money.

What has happened in Europe is going to happen here and may already have begun. We, too, can save the earth for fun and profit.

I have written extensible (over 100 of posts) about the scam called cap and trade, where BOTH BUYER AND SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prise. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation.

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAMthat puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

The European model is a carnival of corruption, profiteering, speculation and multi-billion-dollar fraud. It’s done nothing to improve the environment while handing undeserved profits to big business and driving up the cost of energy to consumers.

Well here is the latest episode of “The Sopranos”, where Glenn Beck gives a very good overview of the people and politicians pushing the Cap and trade and the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), and their HUGE financial gains from this.

And these guys spends billions of $ of our tax money.

What they are really advocating is huge price increases in the cost of energy, meaning the cost of everything.

“Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants.Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.

Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million.”

Also remember that commercial greenhouse operators often enrich greenhouse air with CO2 , also known as nature’s fertilizer, to levels of 1500 parts per million, or four times that of our current atmosphere.

And the cooling continues. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is an imminent treat to humankind.

And remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect etc.

“The average temperature in March 2010 was 44.4 F. This was 1.9 F warmer than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 32nd warmest March in 116 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. “

This year, the March temperature is-6.13 F cooler than1910, the warmest March. And if we compare this year’s March with 1921 it is -3.16 F cooler.

“…oceanographer Dr. Robert Stephenson of the U.S. Office of Naval Research and NASA to say, “Even when exposed, the IPCC leaders claimed it was their “right” to change scientific conclusions so that political leaders could better understand the report.” “To the world’s geophysical community, these unethical practices and total lack of integrity by the leadership of the IPCC have been enough to reveal that their collective claims were – and are – fraudulent.”

Aesop (620-564 BC) the Greek writer famous for his fables told of the boy who falsely cried wolf. Environmentalists have falsely cried wolf and effectively undermine environmentalism the need to live within the confines of a finite planet. They misled, exaggerated and made a multitude of false predictions to the detriment of the environment and people’s willingness to be aware and concerned. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was a major starting point that blamed DDT for many things including thinner eggshells none of which proved correct.

Indeed, as Paul Driessen identified in Eco-imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, banning DDT led to millions of unnecessary deaths from malaria that exceed deaths from AIDS in Africa.

A myriad of false stories made headlines over the last 40 years. All are conditional that is they’re prefaced by words like, ‘could’ and ‘maybe’, but the public generally remembers the terse and unconditional headlines. Ultimately almost all the stories were subsequently proved incorrect, but that never makes the headlines. Remember such stories as sheep and rabbits going blind in Chile because of thinning ozone.

Well as scientists at Johns Hopkins showed it was due to a local infection.

We heard of frogs born deformed and humans were blamed because of pollution. Biologist Stan Sessions showed it was due to a natural parasite.

Each week some natural phenomenon is presented as unnatural and by implication due to human activity. A book is needed to list all the claims and threats made that have not occurred, have proved false or are unfounded.

Global warming and latterly climate change, became the major plank of environmentalist’s religious campaign.They used it to dictate and control how everyone else should live and behave, as a survey of the web pages of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth show. The level of commitment is a real problem. It’s exaggerated by the declining economy and people experience the economic impacts of their tactics and extremism.

Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) disclosed what several scientists had suspected for a long time about the corruption of climate science. Subsequent exposure of the problems with the IPCC Reports led distinguished oceanographer Dr. Robert Stephenson of the U.S. Office of Naval Research and NASA to say, “Even when exposed, the IPCC leaders claimed it was their “right” to change scientific conclusions so that political leaders could better understand the report.” “To the world’s geophysical community, these unethical practices and total lack of integrity by the leadership of the IPCC have been enough to reveal that their collective claims were – and are – fraudulent.” But Bruce Cox, the executive director of Greenpeace “blamed the hacked emails to being politically motivated.”

John Bennett, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, made the same argument, saying: “Mann and his colleagues were simply speaking in their own high-level code, and a number of things were taken out of context.

His remarks underscore lack of understanding of climate science, the serious limitations of the IPCC Reports and what the emails actually disclose. It is not surprising because on March 10 UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said, “Let me be clear: the threat posed by climate change is real. Nothing that has been alleged or revealed in the media recently alters the fundamental scientific consensus on climate change. Nor does it diminish the unique importance of the IPCC’s work.”

Environmentalism was what academics call a paradigm shift. Thomas Kuhn defined them as “a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.” Some attribute the composite photo of the Earth, taken by astronauts in Apollo 8 as the symbolic start of the new paradigm of environmentalism.

Environmental groups grabbed the concept and quickly took the moral high ground preaching that only they cared about the Earth. They went to extremes putting any plant or animal ahead of any human activity or need. Extreme environmentalists profess an anti-humanity, and anti-evolution philosophy. Humans are an aberration according to Ron Arnold, Executive Vice-President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. “Environmentalism intends to transform government, economy, and society in order to liberate nature from human exploitation.” David Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service claims Darwin’s evolution theory doesn’t apply to humans. “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Climate scientists at the CRU used the IPCC, a political vehicle established by the UN, to provide the false scientific basis for all energy and environmental policies. They created what Essex and McKitrick called the Doctrine of Certainty in their book Taken by Storm. They define this as, “The basic not-to-be-questioned assertions of the Doctrine are:

The Earth is warming.

Warming has already been observed.

Humans are causing it.

All but a handful of scientists on the fringe believe it.

Warming is bad.

Action is required immediately.

Any action is better than none.

Claims of uncertainty only cover the ulterior motives of individuals aiming to stop needed action.

Those who defend uncertainty are bad people.

They conclude, “The Doctrine is not true. Each assertion is either manifestly false or the claim to know it is false.” Remember this was written before disclosure of the emails and the many IPCC errors.

But the most devastating proof of the scientific inadequacies of the IPCC Reports is the complete failure of every prediction they have made.They were as wrong on every issue as the Club of Rome Limits to Growth predictions. Ability to predict weather accurately is difficult in 24 hours and virtually impossible beyond 72 hours. AGW proponents claimed weather was different than climate and predictable with a degree of certainty. This is false because climate is an average of the weather. If their claim was correct forecasts in the brief 20 years since their first Report in 1990 would be correct.Every one is wrong. They tried to avoid the problem by switching to a range of scenarios but even the lowest wrong. These are facts Ban Ki Moon and environmental groups can understand. By ignoring them and crying wolf when the wolf is already in the flock undermines the logical and reasonable adoption of environmentalism.

Environmentalists took over environmentalism and preached to everyone how they knew best and only they cared. How dare they? We are all environmentalists. With blind faith they, deceived, misdirected, threatened, destroyed jobs, careers, opportunities and development. Now those who paid the price will be less willing to listen or support genuine environmental concerns.

And these charlatans are spending billions and trillions of our tax money.

“In response to Wigley’s warning, Jones now counselled him to suppress and conceal his concerns and acted as an advocate for Wang’s defence despite the “valid” evidence against his claims.In an email, Jones appealed to Wigley to “keep quiet” about his apparent backing for Keenan’s concern. In order to obviate any further critique or action by Wigley, Jones speciously told him that SUNY was about to take action against Keenan: “Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues. In touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. Just agreed with him that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan has gone to SUNY. Keenan’s about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he sent the complaint. WCW has nothing to worry about, but it still unsettling!””

“The following day, (Sept. 11), Michael Mann responded to the new development. In an email to Jones, he suggested that Wang should threaten E&E with a libel suit: “Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If he doesn’t, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him in touch w/ anleading (sic) attorney who would do this pro bono. Of course, this has to be done quickly. The threat of a lawsuit alone my (sic) prevent them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please feel free to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I think he needs to pursue a legal course her independent of whatever his university is doing. He cannot wait for Stony Brook to complete its internal investigations! If he does so, it will be too late to stop this.”

“The concerted efforts by a group of eminent climate scientists to prevent the publication of the Keenan paper had been unsuccessful. However, this was mainly due to the fact that I was prepared to resist peer pressure and to be open-minded regarding Keenan’s evidence and argumentation. I doubt that mainstream science editors would have dared to reject the opposition by leading climate scientists who had targeted an amateur researcher. As Phil Jones fittingly put it to me in an email: “How would any journal ever contemplate publishing such a paper?”

“On Feb. 1, 2010, The Guardian reported that Doug Keenan’s E&E paper “may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN’s top climate science body. […] The [CRU] emails suggest that [Phil Jones] helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming. The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.”

“At no time since Keenan and Wigley raised significant doubts about the reliability of Chinese climate data has Jones taken public steps to clear up the discrepancies regarding Wang’s claims and data. It is unacceptable that the scientist who disseminates a data product on which international treaties are based, as well as IPCC reports and countless government policies, should actively seek to suppress information that calls the quality of the data into question, especially after one [of] his colleagues and a leading authority has advised him that Keenan’s evidence about the data appeared to be legitimate. Comparable behaviour in the private sector would be subject to severe sanction.

The revelations exposed by the CRU emails require the full disclosure of all documents and correspondence in this alleged fraud case. Until the whole affair is fully and publicly investigated, the reputation and integrity of leading climate scientists will remain to appear tainted and discredited.”

When asked for the data behind one study ‘proving’ global warming, CRU scientists instead planned to sue. Following the release of the Climategate emails from East Anglia University`s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the U.K.’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee decided to investigate its implications “for the integrity of scientific research.” Benny Peiser of the Faculty of Science at Liverpool John Moores University submitted a memorandum, which appears below in edited form.

By Benny Peiser

I am the editor of CCNet and the co-editor of the journal Energy & Environment (E&E).

I will outline the chronology of the CRU-Keenan affair as documented in the published CRU emails and according to unpublished email correspondence between me and Dr. Jones. [at CRU].

On Aug. 29, 2007, I received an email from Doug Keenan with his paper titled “The Fraud Allegations against Wei-Chyung Wang.” In this paper, Keenan accused Wei-Chyung Wang (State University of Albany, SUNY, New York) of scientific fraud. In his paper, Keenan documented evidence that Wang had fabricated information about Chinese meteorological weather stations. His allegations concern two publications, one by Jones et al (1990) that has been a cornerstone in multiple IPCC reports about the allegedly minimal role of the effect of urban heat islands on the global temperature record. One of the key papers to underpin this conclusion is the study by Jones et al. To refute Keenan’s claims of scientific fraud would have only required the release of documentary information about the Chinese weather stations in question which Wang has long claimed to possess.

In the afternoon of the same day (Aug. 29) I sent Phil Jones [then-director of the CRU] an email with a copy of Keenan’s paper attached. In my email, I asked Jones whether he would be prepared to comment on the content and factual accuracy of the Keenan paper.

Later that day, Jones circulated the paper to Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang and Dr. Tom Wigley (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), informing both his colleagues that he “won’t be responding” to my request, but that he would be prepared to do so if his colleagues thought he should.

The next day, Aug. 30, Wang emailed Jones to say that Jones needed to respond “by providing E&E with a simple answer of ‘false’ to Keenan’s write-up, based on the communication with me.[…] We are facing a tricky person and group, and the only way to do it is to follow the procedure to drive them crazy. […] We are not going to let Keenan doing things his way. […] We should be thinking, after the whole odeal (sic) is over, to take legal (or other) actions against Keenan. […]”

In his response to Wang on the same day, Jones wrote: “Libel is quite easy to prove in the U.K. as you’re not a public figure. Perhaps when you’re back you ought to consider taking some legal advice from SUNY. Assuming the paper is published that is. […].”

Later the same day, Jones emailed Wang and Wigley to inform them that he would not respond to my request “until the SUNY process has run its course.”

Later still, Dr. Michael E. Mann (Pennsylvania State University) contacted Jones: “With respect to Peiser’s guest editing of E&E and your review, we think there are two key points. First, if there are factual errors (other than the fraud allegation) it is very important that you point them out now. If not, Keenan could later allege that he made the claims in good faith, as he provided you an opportunity to respond and you did now. Secondly, we think you need to also focus on the legal implications. In particular, you should mention that the publisher of a libel is also liable for damages — that might make Sonja B-C be a little wary. Of course, if it does get published, maybe the resulting settlement would shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way its (sic) actually win-win for us, not them. Lets (sic) see how this plays out…”

On Aug. 31, Tom Wigley (a former CRU director) emailed Jones to notify him that he believed Keenan’s paper raised a valid issue: “Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect. Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.” Jones was now in possession of authoritative information that undermined his claims about the integrity of CRU data products for which he is responsible. Confronted with the evidence from Keenan, and, most importantly, Wigley’s advice that Keenan appeared to have a point, Jones should have been insistent on getting the data and facts out rather than keeping them secret.

In response to Wigley’s warning, Jones now counselled him to suppress and conceal his concerns and acted as an advocate for Wang’s defence despite the “valid” evidence against his claims.In an email, Jones appealed to Wigley to “keep quiet” about his apparent backing for Keenan’s concern. In order to obviate any further critique or action by Wigley, Jones speciously told him that SUNY was about to take action against Keenan: “Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues. In touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. Just agreed with him that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan has gone to SUNY. Keenan’s about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he sent the complaint. WCW has nothing to worry about, but it still unsettling!”

On Sept. 5, Jones emailed me a list of objections to the Keenan paper. Ignoring the expert advice he had received from Wigley, Jones called on me to reject the paper: “My view is that the claims are unsubstantiated.”

I informed Jones that I would forward his objections to Keenan and stressed: “I know this is a very sensitive matter and I will not rush any decision. I will keep you updated and informed.”

On Sept. 10, I received Keenan’s response which I forwarded to Jones on the same day. I emailed Jones: “As far as I can see, his [Keenan’s] basic accusation seems unaffected by your criticism. Unless there is any compelling evidence that Keenan’s main claim is unjustified or unsubstantiated, I intend to publish his paper in the forthcoming issue of E&E. Please let me know by the end of the week if you have any additional arguments that may sway me in my decision.”

On the same day, Jones forwarded my email to Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, concluding: “It seems as though E&E will likely publish this paper.”

The following day, (Sept. 11), Michael Mann responded to the new development. In an email to Jones, he suggested that Wang should threaten E&E with a libel suit: “Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If he doesn’t, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him in touch w/ anleading (sic) attorney who would do this pro bono. Of course, this has to be done quickly. The threat of a lawsuit alone my (sic) prevent them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please feel free to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I think he needs to pursue a legal course her independent of whatever his university is doing. He cannot wait for Stony Brook to complete its internal investigations! If he does so, it will be too late to stop this.”

Later that day, I received three emails by Phil Jones with additional references and objections to the Keenan paper. Jones put additional pressure on by stressing: “I don’t see how any journal would ever contemplate publishing such a paper. I hope you’ll reconsider.”

After minor revisions of the paper following peer review, I informed Keenan on Oct. 8 that I had accepted his paper for publication with the modified title “The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang.” It was published in E&E volume 18, number 7-8, pp. 985-995 in December, 2007.

The concerted efforts by a group of eminent climate scientists to prevent the publication of the Keenan paper had been unsuccessful. However, this was mainly due to the fact that I was prepared to resist peer pressure and to be open-minded regarding Keenan’s evidence and argumentation. I doubt that mainstream science editors would have dared to reject the opposition by leading climate scientists who had targeted an amateur researcher. As Phil Jones fittingly put it to me in an email: “How would any journal ever contemplate publishing such a paper?”

On Feb. 1, 2010, The Guardian reported that Doug Keenan’s E&E paper “may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN’s top climate science body. […] The [CRU] emails suggest that [Phil Jones] helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming. The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.”

At no time since Keenan and Wigley raised significant doubts about the reliability of Chinese climate data has Jones taken public steps to clear up the discrepancies regarding Wang’s claims and data. It is unacceptable that the scientist who disseminates a data product on which international treaties are based, as well as IPCC reports and countless government policies, should actively seek to suppress information that calls the quality of the data into question, especially after one [of] his colleagues and a leading authority has advised him that Keenan’s evidence about the data appeared to be legitimate. Comparable behaviour in the private sector would be subject to severe sanction.

The revelations exposed by the CRU emails require the full disclosure of all documents and correspondence in this alleged fraud case. Until the whole affair is fully and publicly investigated, the reputation and integrity of leading climate scientists will remain to appear tainted and discredited.

Climategate: Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted

With today’s revelation on Pajamas Media, only the Japan Meteorological Agency is left to save the warmists. Don’t bet on it. (Click here to see Horner discuss this article on PJTV.)

March 11, 2010 – by Christopher Horner

The warmist response to Climategate — the discovery of the thoroughly corrupt practices of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) — was that the tainted CRU dataset was just one of four independent data sets. You know. So really there’s no big deal.

Thanks to a FOIA request, the document production of which I am presently plowing through — and before that, thanks to the great work of Steve McIntyre, and particularly in their recent, comprehensive work, Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts — we know that NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) passed no one’s test for credibility.

Not even NASA’s.

In fact, CRU’s former head, Phil Jones, even told his buddies that while people may think his dataset — which required all of those “fudge factors” (their words) — is troubled, “GISS is inferior” to CRU.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using … CRU data for the global mean [temperatures]. … “What we do is accurate enough” — left unspoken: for government work — “[but] we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”

To reiterate, NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climategate temperature data. According to NASA.

And apparently, although these points were never stressed publicly before, NASA GISS is just “basically a modeling group forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data.” But now, however, NASA GISS “happily [combines the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) data] and Hadley Center’s data” for the purpose of evaluating NASA’s models.

So — Climategate’s CRU was just “one of four organizations worldwide that have independently compiled thermometer measurements of local temperatures from around the world to reconstruct the history of average global surface temperature.”

But one of the three remaining sets is not credible either, and definitely not independent.

Two down, two to go.

Reto Ruedy refers his inquiring (ok, credulous) reporter to NCDC — the third of the four data sets — as being the gold standard for U.S. temperatures.

But NCDC has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere — Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have found NCDC completely incredible, having made a practice out of not including cooler temperature stations over time, exaggerating the warming illusion.

Three out of the four temperature datasets stink, with corroboration from the alarmists. Second-sourced, no less.

Anyone know if Japan has a FOIA?

Christopher Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA’s temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU’s embattled data, as has been claimed.

March 10, 2010 – by Charlie Martin

Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.

—————————————

There are only four climate datasets available. All global warming study, such as the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), must be based on these four.

They are: the NASA GISS dataset, the NCDC GHCN dataset, the CRU dataset, and the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset.

Following Climategate, when it became known that raw temperature data for CRU’s “HADCRU3″ climate dataset had been destroyed, Phil Jones, CRU’s former director, said the data loss was not important — because there were other independent climate datasets available.

But the emails reveal that at least three of the four datasets were not independent, that NASA GISS was not considered to be accurate, and that these quality issues were known to both top climate scientists and to the mainstream press.

In a response to reporter Doyle Rice of USA Today, Dr. Reto Ruedy — a senior scientist at NASA — recommended the following:

Continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and Phil Jones’ [HADCRU3] data for the global means. …

We are basically a modeling groupand were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. …

This response was extended later the same day by Dr. James Hansen — the head of NASA GISS:

[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. …

It should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise.

Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.

The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.

These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.

Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer. He holds an MS in Computer Science from DukeUniversity, where he spent six years with the National Biomedical Simulation Resource, DukeUniversityMedicalCenter. Find him at http://chasrmartin.com, and on his blog at http://explorations.chasrmartin.com.

“We are being asked, commanded, to change the basic ways that we produce and use energy. The reason for this change is also different from what you might think.

The environmental movement uses a speculative opinion about carbon dioxide to arm its fight against you. When they say they are “fighting global warming,” what they really mean is they are fighting your prosperity. Your prosperity is directly related to the production of affordable energy with fossil fuels. China understands this. India understands this. The environmental movement understands it as well, but does not care.”

“What you must always keep in mind is that the only goal of the environmental movement is to save nature from you. There is no other reason for its existence. The environmental movement does not care what happens to your job, your family, your future, the future of your children, this country, any country.

Another subtle mission of the “go green” slogan is to have you participate in their war without you knowing it. In a very real sense “go green” is the war cry of the environmental movement — vilifying a gas we can’t live without to arm their anti-civilization war machine.”

Despite the sales pitch, ”going green” is not remotely about you or your children’s future.

Posted By Art Horn On March 10, 2010

It’s omnipresent now, appearing in every form of media, in grocery stores, on any sort of product. Smiles and earth tone images greet us as we are told over and over again to “go green,” it’s the right thing to do. Don’t be left out, everyone’s doing it! Green is in, save the earth. It’s in all the schools — green is good, kind, and moral. Green is our future. Without it there will be no future.

To “go green” is a metaphor for a cause, but the cause is not the one you might think it is. Green is not about saving energy. It is not about conservation or living more efficiently by recycling. It’s not about electric cars or hydrogen power or solar panels.

Green is not about you. Green is about saving nature.From you.

We are told that going green is the way to create a more eco-friendly and responsible world, but the real meaning is more subtle and sinister. To go green means to change what we are doing, and implies that if we don’t change what we are doing we will inflict terrible harm on the planet and future generations. So what are we to change from, and to what?

We are being asked, commanded, to change the basic ways that we produce and use energy. The reason for this change is also different from what you might think.

The environmental movement uses a speculative opinion about carbon dioxide to arm its fight against you. When they say they are “fighting global warming,” what they really mean is they are fighting your prosperity. Your prosperity is directly related to the production of affordable energy with fossil fuels. China understands this. India understands this. The environmental movement understands it as well, but does not care.

Roughly 87 percent of everything we make energy from produces carbon dioxide gas. “Go green” looks to reduce the output of that gas. The problem is there is nothing “green” on any scale remotely near what is needed to replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.They know that there will never be enough windmills or solar panels to power even a tiny fraction of the world we know today, much less the future. The leaders of the environmental movement know this.

The phrase “go green” seems harmless enough — what’s so wrong with being more efficient and looking for new ways of producing energy? It’s true, there’s nothing wrong with looking for new energy sources. But going green has been promoted as the answer to all of our energy needs, the idea being that if we “go green” we can save the earth and still produce plenty of energy and create new jobs. This is part of the lie.

What you must always keep in mind is that the only goal of the environmental movement is to save nature from you. There is no other reason for its existence. The environmental movement does not care what happens to your job, your family, your future, the future of your children, this country, any country.

Another subtle mission of the “go green” slogan is to have you participate in their war without you knowing it. In a very real sense “go green” is the war cry of the environmental movement — vilifying a gas we can’t live without to arm their anti-civilization war machine.

The opportunities of “going green” have not been lost on corporate America. Corporations have joined in a strange alliance of sorts with the environmental groups. Some very large companies are promoting “go green” in their ad campaigns — you can’t watch a commercial from General Electric without seeing a windmill. Insurance companies promote “going green” as a responsible and eco-sensitive way to insure your car or house. Solar panels are ubiquitous in advertising, lighting our way to a brighter future. Yet corporations could care less about the environmentalist goal of “going green” — the phrase is, again, meant to sucker, to make the consumer feel good about buying the product from the company. It’s no different than the use of words like “new,” “improved,” or “natural.” “Green” is just another marketing tool, and the act of “going green” in the corporate world is the same as it has always been, even if the color of money is not always green anymore.

“Go green” stands for reduced economic activity. The idea is to change the world — scale down the world’s economies to save the climate and the world from prosperity seeking humans. Why else would all these eco-groups demand we meet the now defunct Kyoto Protocol carbon emission reductions? Why else would they demand we reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050? Because they know the only way to meet those carbon reductions is to radically change everything. The environmentalists fully intend to beat down the economies of developed nations and to stamp out any hopes of the third world.

The next time you see or hear or read “go green” remember it means “go back” — to a time when people lived half as long as today. To a time when humans were at the mercy of nature.

“Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Obama Department of Energy is using the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) — the lobbying arm of “Big Wind” in the U.S. — to coordinate political responses with two strongly ideological activist groups: the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the George Soros funded Center for American Progress (CAP).”

“The emails expose active coordination between the Obama administration, the DoE and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the AWEA. These emails show the Obama DoE using the AWEA as a conduit to both the CAP and the UCS, and taking steps to ensure that aspects of its coordination were not committed to paper (or email) because the emails might be revealed later.”

The Department of Energy’s scientific conclusions were instigated — even dictated — by Big Wind’s lobbyists and leftists. Read here for the timeline and the key figures involved.

March 9, 2010 – by Christopher Horner

Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Obama Department of Energy is using the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) — the lobbying arm of “Big Wind” in the U.S. — to coordinate political responses with two strongly ideological activist groups: the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the George Soros funded Center for American Progress (CAP).

This is further proof that Obama has betrayed his promise to ban lobbyists. Further, this incident suggests yet another questionable appointment — Cathy Zoi, assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy at the DoE, injected politics into public policy. Cathy Zoi also happens to be the former CEO of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection.

This incident began when an economic paper published by a Spanish university concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program has cost the country about $800,000 and 2.2 jobs per each job created. Spain’s program had been cited eight times by the Obama administration as being the model for its vision of a U.S. “green jobs” program.

The emails privately describe the Spanish paper as “damaging.”

The emails expose active coordination between the Obama administration, the DoE and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the AWEA. These emails show the Obama DoE using the AWEA as a conduit to both the CAP and the UCS, and taking steps to ensure that aspects of its coordination were not committed to paper (or email) because the emails might be revealed later.

The emails reveal three principal issues in the 900 pages received so far. (“So far,” because the Competitive Enterprise Institute is appealing NREL’s withholding of many more pages, and reviewing the DoE’s recent production to see if those withholdings should be challenged.)

The three principle issues:

1. The Obama DoE’s relationship with the Big Wind lobby and left-wing ideological activists. What role did those groups play in producing an official administration response to the Spanish “green jobs” study?

2. Apparently misleading — or false — statements made to Congress by the DoE. Particularly the statements made by Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi. What was her role in developing the response to the Spanish report?

3. Career DoE staffers’ and scientists’ confusion, then concern, then scrambling, and finally dissembling regarding how the response was initiated and at whose request. Was the report — which cost taxpayers around $5000 to prepare — instigated and directed by an industry lobby?

The difficulty in reconciling the internal discussions revealed by the emails with statements made to congressional committees — by DoE’s legislative affairs staff, and by Ms. Zoi specifically — raise questions that should interest those congressional committees. It seems inescapable from these emails that the AWEA actually instigated the DoE report. It is also clear that AWEA played a role in crafting it, along with the far-left UCS.This is important, because DoE and NREL are both on record saying it was the other guy’s idea.

More troubling, DoE followed up with a specific letter from Ms. Zoi to Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) that failed to answer his inquires, though the emails demonstrate that Ms. Zoi’s staff had the information Congressman Sensenbrenner was seeking. In fact, the emails show great consternation regarding what to say about this question, and a reluctance to put in writing who the “unnamed sponsor” was. The email trail I received concludes with a September 22, 2009, email, calling for a huddle in the office of Zoi’s Chief Operating Officer Steven Chalk to get things straight.

The DoE emails show the following sequence of events:

1. The AWEA was unnerved by the Spanish report.

2. AWEA went to DoE’s NREL with its anxieties, asking what the Obama administration would do to respond.

3. NREL began putting together an internal “talking points” memo on the paper, working with AWEA.

5. Upset by a George Will column citing the Spanish paper, and now aware that AWEA was crafting the memo with NREL, Zoi contacted NREL. She asked if the memo could be published as an official Obama administration response, rather than an NREL response.

6. NREL and DoE staff showed worry, because the paper was never intended to be — and does not meet DoE requirements to be — an external report.It was only suited to be an internal memo, as it reflected no actual research.

7. The paper was completed and sent to AWEA, with a request that AWEA send it to the Center for American Progress and the Union of Concerned Scientists. This was done at the request of DoE officials, who wanted the two leftist groups to offer comments on the paper prior to its release.

8. At this time, internal DoE and NREL discussion ensued about toning down the partisan nature of the paper. Oddly, this discussion had been accompanied by a request for CAP involvement.

9. Zoi’s office made sure the paper was issued with its status upgraded to be a more formal document than regulations indicate is proper. Emails reveal NREL and DoE staff worrying about pressure from Zoi to make this exception.

The emails fall into three categories, each raising interesting questions:

1. Emails discussing how to spin the Spanish report: how to respond to this challenge to one of the Obama administration’s cherished programs?

2. Emails telling of pressure being put on DoE staffers by Cathy Zoi.

3. Emails describing the DoE’s relationship with Big Wind, the Soros-funded CAP, and the leftist UCS.

You might expect this to be a story of great interest to the mainstream media.

But I have excellent information pointing to at least one national newspaper being given these same emails by DoE, upon request, only to have its editors spike the story. In addition to being a case-study in Obama-style governance, this incident reaffirms the role and the importance of new media (such as PJM).

As of today, the NREL and DoE are still withholding the comments from CAP and AWEA, and apparently are also withholding other communications that should have been provided following the appeal of other AWEA communications withheld.

Even so, the documents produced so far tell us much about the Obama administration and its dealings with favored lobbyists and ideological activists. As the investigation continues, we expect to discover much more of what the American people deserve to know regarding the current administration’s manner of governance.

The South African president’s office yesterday announced the nomination of its tourism minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk for the United Nations’ top climate post. Ashead of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC).

Seems like the right guy for this UN ”scientific” job. He worked as a student spy for the apartheid government. And he sold out his own political party for a junior cabinet seat in ANC. After that he started helping ANC to smear its democratic opposition and to encourage opposition politicians to defect.

Jepp, here we have another perfect example of a Global Warming Hysteric. And an excellent school book example of people that get appointed at high positions at UN.

This is the kind of people they, the Global Warming Hysterics, want to PUT IN CHARGE OF A WORLD GOVERNMENT. Or the embellishment they use “Global governance”. (See also my previous post)

Nice people, wouldn’t you say. With the interest of the common people first in mind

Here is what Patrick Bond of South Africa’s Centre for Civil Society has to say about this charming guy:

”The UNFCC post must be headed by someone of integrity, and that’s not a characteristic associated with Van Schalkwyk, thanks to his chequered career as an apartheid student spy and a man who sold out his political party for a junior cabinet seat,” said Bond.

He added the nomination ”doesn’t make sense, because if Van Schalkwyk was a world-class climate diplomat, why did (President Jacob) Zuma demote him by removing his environment duties last year?”

“Spokesman for Earthlife Africa Tristen Taylor said Van Schalkwyk did not have a good record in cutting carbon emissions while environmental affairs minister.”

The nomination here:

South African Government nominates Minister van Schalkwyk for top UN post